You don't see a lot of "purist" stuff because it happens in the emotions and feelings where normal language is shaped to make for a movement in those areas without having to be explicit about it. That's the whole point and why Sargon's move was so lazy using explicit swear words and cheap logic.
>but why does it matter if the speaker is libertarian (or not)? What matters, and is indisputable, is their statement was libertarian.
Because you can't contain people in speech. How is this even a question? Policing speech does one third of what the unwritten rules and unspoken feelings do for maintaining social order. You can feel a father's disapproval, you can be emotionally moved towards the Good, ect, ect. The speech acts nearly always come after the thing that happened.
A car crash always has people mourning and setting up new safety rules and making 'indisputable statements' well after the event itself. Most 'statements' are just empty posturing and perfect-form chasing.
Golly gosh this feels like taking a horse to water but being unable to make it drink.
>but why does it matter if the speaker is libertarian (or not)? What matters, and is indisputable, is their statement was libertarian.
Because you can't contain people in speech. How is this even a question? Policing speech does one third of what the unwritten rules and unspoken feelings do for maintaining social order. You can feel a father's disapproval, you can be emotionally moved towards the Good, ect, ect. The speech acts nearly always come after the thing that happened.
A car crash always has people mourning and setting up new safety rules and making 'indisputable statements' well after the event itself. Most 'statements' are just empty posturing and perfect-form chasing.
Golly gosh this feels like taking a horse to water but being unable to make it drink.