I'm curious: what is the fundamental difference between conditioning
a person's behavior through feeding information ("speech"), and
conditioning a person's behavior with a baseball bat?The traditional view is that a person can rationally process the information and make choices, as opposed to being subjected to bodily harm. This is completely false, as the money spent in advertizing, propaganda and info giants proves. With the modern technology, speech is a cheaper and more reliable way to unconditionally condition people. However, this does require technology, usually outside individual's reach. For most people, violence is more effective way for their influence on the world than speech. People are generally rational creatures. The 'left' was first to understand this, so it is only natural that it will internally sanction speech as violence, as it already has control over info pipes and doesn't need competition. Externally, the left will promote the individual speech, as it is perfectly aware that such speech is irrelevant against mechanized info pipes. The situation is perfectly symmetric on the right - the right will promote individual violence potential, as it is perfectly aware that it stands no chance against the organized enforcement. For the traditional right, the government is the force monopoly, for the left the government is the speech monopoly. On 6/15/17, 14:16, t byfield wrote:
different view of the relationship between speech and violence. The mainstream
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
