3 ms·

I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. I 100% agree that it would be an absolute disaster if America adopts even European levels of censorship, let alone

I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. I 100% agree that it would be an absolute disaster if America adopts even European levels of censorship, let alone Chinese. I am absolutely in favour of extremely free speech. My point here is that yes, obviously, they could speak their mind once they got to America because of the attitudes of society and the local governments. They hadn't been permanently altered by their former societies refusal to use certain words, or present things in certain ways. That is, the kind of "mind control" assumed by the people who try to erase certain types of language, doesn't actually alter anyone's minds. It may appear that way if they're afraid to speak out but nothing has actually changed. People's opinions aren't altered by language policing, yet, the people who do it are convinced it does. That's why I'm sort of confused by your post. You suggest that once language is "de-nuded" then it would take "generations" for people to be able to "think again outside the constraints on communication". This a strong Sapir-Whorf take, right? It's an assertion that the language you can use controls the boundaries of what you can think. And my point is that this hypothesis has been proven wrong a very long time ago.

noduerme 4y ago
I do think our thoughts are constrained by language - not necessarily by its unavailability, but definitely by societal norms that make it transgressive to say or think certain things. Even mentioning that certain thoughts you could say are transgressive makes you transgressive in a totalitarian culture. Thus a sign with 7 or 8 asterisks like gets people thrown in jail in Russia now. That's not because a dictat came from on high, it's because a system that coerces speech always attracts enforcers, who also raise their children to be enforcers; it is much harder to move from a system of repression to one of openness than the other way. Culture tends toward repression in every human lifespan to date except for one generation in the modern world, a few in the 18th and 19th centuries, and possibly a couple in ancient Rome and Greece. Civilization might tend toward open dialog in the very long run, but it's a much longer and slower climb, and setbacks - enforcement of language or "right" thinking - can be devastating and take thousands of years to correct.

noduerme 4y ago

I do think our thoughts are constrained by language - not necessarily by its unavailability, but definitely by societal norms that make it transgressive to say or think certain things. Even mentioning that certain thoughts you could say are transgressive makes you transgressive in a totalitarian culture. Thus a sign with 7 or 8 asterisks like gets people thrown in jail in Russia now. That's not because a dictat came from on high, it's because a system that coerces speech always attracts enforcers, who also raise their children to be enforcers; it is much harder to move from a system of repression to one of openness than the other way. Culture tends toward repression in every human lifespan to date except for one generation in the modern world, a few in the 18th and 19th centuries, and possibly a couple in ancient Rome and Greece. Civilization might tend toward open dialog in the very long run, but it's a much longer and slower climb, and setbacks - enforcement of language or "right" thinking - can be devastating and take thousands of years to correct.