Can we separate the words from who said it?

“We’re all our own prisons, we are each all our own wardens and we do our own time. I can’t judge anyone else. What other people do is not really my affair unless they approach me with it. Prison’s in your mind. Can’t you see I’m free?”
I know I’m a broken record with this but the above is something said by Manson and it’s really getting to me. Someone in a different forum said we should be able to analyze the words without being concerned with who said them, but I wonder if that’s possible. I mean WHO said it can be important in regards to the content of the message. I heard it argued that calls for “civility” when it comes to civil rights means different things based on the level of power the person has. Someone above can say it to help preserve the status quo under the guise of being “open minded”. Thoughts?

Okay, you are broken record.

You know that often the same word have multiple meaning, or shading of meaning.

Someone in a different forum said we should be able to analyze the words without being concerned with who said them, but I wonder if that’s possible.
Only if one wants to be superficial. That's not to say we shouldn't hear some words, without knowing who the author is. Since authorship can bias how we 'hear' the words.

It’s all semantics. :wink:

I guess so but I think who said it can be as vital as the content because it puts it in perspective. In this sense I think it’s something he said to appear as a sage and as though he has the answers as long as you follow him.

The content though still troubles me

There’s another term for that: “bullshitting the gullible” :wink:

I get that but there are some who look at the content of his words and think him some kind of cultural hero while condemning his actions. Like when it was with the Unabomber.

Okay, I posted that Jonathan Haidt video in two other threads, but there’s an answer to the question near the end that sheds light on this question. Haidt’s model identifies 5 areas of emotional intuition that all humans share:


Liberals are stronger in the first two, Conservatives are more equal across all of them. Here’s the applicable part. In small groups, where you want cohesion, you need all 5 of these. It’s our tribal nature. Haidt mentions gangs in the lecture, he might say cults. Either way, it applies to Manson. In quotes like the above, he is selling you on freedom, getting away from authority, not being loyal to your nation, but that’s the marketing. Once he draws you in with that, then you will find out he is the authority, that others in the group are loyal and will enforce that on you, that there a set of sacred acts and beliefs that you need to know. Only if you do all that, will you also benefit from the care of the group and be treated fairly.

That is what it sounds like. His quote at the top seems similar to what I hear churches say about how your life sucks and they offer freedom (it’s a different pitch but the bottom line is the same no matter where you go). Which kind of brings me to my point about the words and who said them and I think it’s important to look at who is saying them. But the other guy said no and that when you do so it colors your view of the message and what is being said.

Also part of me wonders what he meant by him being a reflection of the society that we live in.