The Impossibility of Not Covering Again, Old Ground.

I have had a certain thought in my head. And I would have posted about it (again) but there's the dilema. If I have not explored that idea here, in the past, I am sure I made the argument as what I would call a "throwaway." That's what I call it when I toss off/out the bare bones of the argument, while either bolstering a main line of attack, or otherwise going all shotgun/scatter shot about it.

Anyway, the thought in my head was how twisted the GOP is nowadays. It resembles more the traitors who made war against our great nation, back from 1861-1865, than the Republican Party that fought that war to preserve our Perpetual Union. Not a terribly original thought. But some days the noise level from them people just highlights that fact moreso, than other days.

Anyway, some other thing has been crashing around in my head. And that would be that silly argument Ann Althouse made in that bloggingheads.tv performance I linked, over the past few days. (Either way you are going to get something partially recycled from me, today.)Personally, I find that libertarian, Pollyanna view of non-judicial, extra legal, not constitutionally protected free speech, to be flat out childish. And at some point today, it occurred to me, that is not only merely bullshit (as I said last time visiting the subject,) but it is a logic loop of stupidity, to say it is anti free speech to express the idea that some people need to shut up (get off the TV, what ever) with the shit they spew.

Mind me. First you have the offensive shit spewer. They are engaging in "free speech." Then we have the critic who takes offense or otherwise rejects the first speaker. That's "free speech" too, even if the speech is,"For the love of all that is decent, shut the fuck up with that mindless shit!"

But now we have the libertarian, "free speech" extremist, bullshit child mind's "free speech." Perversely, they do essentially the very same thing speaker number two does, and that is deliver a message ,"You should not say what you did just there. STFU with that!" But oddly, if not hypocritically, they engage in the very same sort of (allegedly) anti free speech, at the very time they claim to be defending "free speech." It's as consistent a matching of ideology and behaviour as to be in the middle of the act of beating your dog with a pool cue, while waxing forth about the evils of animal cruelty.

Analogy aside, it's just plain stupid.

And no matter how much longer the the chain or argument goes on and on, we still have lots and lots of "free speech" flying around. But the perversity of criticizing some one's speech for their criticizing of an other's speech is just it's own level of bullshit.

And again, I am not a free speech extremist. I would rather see less pointless bullshit than more. And no kiddies. the mere fact you think you have a point doesn't mean you are not engaging in bullshit. The level of sincerity you show your thought is not even relevant. Well, I have to correct myself there. As Professor Frankfurt would say (spoiler alert) and as the last line of his book reads:

"Sincerity itself is bullshit."


Last thought. I have been stuck on the overlap between politics and linguistics and rhetoric for years. And I retreat to that meta level of analysis sometimes, just to avoid dealing with the same old partisan shit. And today is one of those days. (And it's not like it is worth it, every day at least, to actually spend my time deconstructing the bullshit arguments the other side makes. And makes. And makes. Talk about covering old ground, again!)