felipec
unbelief
Freedom of speech maximalist who is anti-woke, anti-orthodoxy, anti-establishment, and anti-capitalist.
User ID: 1796
felipec
unbelief
7d ago
What I'm saying is that you can't just get around their memes by switching terminology.
Yes you can. That's the whole point of rebranding.
They will have to come up with entirely new memes.
The way to win is to confront them head-on.
How is that working out?
felipec
unbelief
7d ago
Contrary to common belief, freedom of speech does not only apply lengthy substack articles explaining ideas in great detail, but also to symbolic acts which show support of an idea, such as flying symbols or flags, or burning them.
No it doesn't. Quote a freedom of speech thinker stating anything similar to that.
It is a handle attached to a certain ideology with well established ideas.
So?
felipec
unbelief
7d ago
"Swastikas are cool" isn't an idea?
Nobody is expressing that idea. You are making an unwarranted assumption. Inanimate objects are incapable of defending an idea, which was the whole point of freedom of speech. Not just to be able to state an idea, but be able to defend it in open debate.
How do you propose a flag can defend an idea?
Moreover, I can put a flag in my store for trolling purposes, or just as a freedom of speech prop. Why are you assuming intent from inanimate objects?
felipec
unbelief
7d ago
This sounds a lot like "any snow flake is free to slide down the mountain, it is the avalanches that are the problem".
Snow flakes are not susceptible to social contagion.
Suppose there is a baker who runs an "Aryan Bakery" with a swastika in the logo, which is something which is very permissible from a freedom of speech point of view.
By making that claim you are proving my point.
An Aryan Bakery has nothing to do with Open Ideas, because there's no idea being expressed or defended.
Therefore it has nothing to do with the reasoning behind freedom of speech, which was all about ideas that could potentially benefit society.
The fact that you believe an Aryan Bakery has anything to do with actual freedom of speech shows the need for Open Ideas.
felipec
unbelief
7d ago
white supremacists are generally conflict theorists as well.
Let's look at some criteria and see how many apply to white supremacists:
- Conflict theorists treat politics as war. I don't see how that applies to white supremacists.
- Conflict theorists view debate as having a minor clarifying role at best. Doesn't apply.
- Conflict theorists treat the asymmetry of sides as their first and most important principle. Irrelevant.
- Conflict theorists think this is more often a convenient excuse than a real problem. Nothing to do with white supremacists.
- Conflict theorists think you can save the world by increasing passion. Nope.
- For a conflict theorist, intelligence is inadequate or even suspect. Definitely not.
- Conflict theorists think of free speech and open debate about the same way a 1950s Bircher would treat avowed Soviet agents coming into neighborhoods and trying to convince people of the merits of Communism. No.
- Conflict theorists think that stopping George Soros / the Koch brothers is the most important thing in the world. Nope.
- Conflict theorists think racism is a conflict between races. Ironically, no.
- When conflict theorists criticize democracy, it’s because it doesn’t give enough power to the average person – special interests can buy elections, or convince representatives to betray campaign promises in exchange for cash. No.
So the claim that "white supremacists are generally conflict theorists" doesn't seem to hold any water.
Your mistake is that you assumed "conflict theory vs. mistake theory" was isomorphic to the two sides of the culture war; it's not.
That's definitely a claim, but you have not substantiated it.
felipec
unbelief
7d ago
They can try, and they might temporarily succeed, but eventually they'll lose, because truth always wins in the long run.
That's precisely what most freedom of speech thinkers argued.
Also, it's not 2020, in 2025 social justice warriors are losing the culture war. The newer generations are not buying their propaganda any more.
felipec
unbelief
11d ago
Your idea of Freedom of Speech and Open Ideas is constrained to a narrow field (everywhere except interpersonal relationships?).
No. I believe Open Ideas / Freedom of speech applies to interpersonal relationships as well.
But the reason why you decide to distance yourself from a person matters. If the reason why you personally decided to distance yourself is because you personally find some of his/her views detestable, that's a personal choice. But if the reason is that the tyranny of the majority has decreed that's what everyone should do, that's entirely different.
The key factor is not whether or not you distance yourself. It's what are the consequences for society.
If you make your decision based on personal criteria, it's likely there will be no repercussions to society. But you make it based on societal decrees, it's very likely that other people would do the same, and that would almost certainly blow back on society.
So basically if a social ostracism decision has a potential to affect society, freedom of speech has something to say about it.
felipec
unbelief
11d ago
I think you're confused here.
Right, I meant mistake theorists, not conflict theorists.
In my view what Scott Alexander calls "conflict theorists" is basically woke ideology. So, yes: people who subscribe to the woke ideology don't believe in freedom of speech.
But "mistake theorists" are not significantly different: they just pretend to believe in freedom of speech.
Alexander goes on to further deconflate the categories and argues there may be "easy mistake theorists" and "hard mistake theorists". So perhaps in this framing it's only the "easy mistake theorists" the ones that pretend to believe in freedom of speech.
All I know is there's many non-woke people who pretend to care about freedom of speech, but all they do is parrot what the First Amendment says. That's not freedom of speech as it was intended.
felipec
unbelief
11d ago
We should tabboo both "freedom of speech" and your proposed "Open Ideas." The contention in these debates is that we have an obligation to forebear from certain courses of action in response to certain speech acts by others.
But humans need words to communicate -- and apparently so do other rational agents. It's nearly imposible to talk about empathy, mass formation psychosis, rent-seeking, woke ideology, frequency illusion, etc. without using these words.
Did I breach an obligation to A by these actions?
That doesn't depend on either freedom of speech or Open Ideas.
felipec
unbelief
11d ago
Interesting. I tried the same, but the earliest I could find were comments from 2010, and it's the same thing: people were already using as if it was part of the Zeitgeist, but no source.
This reminds me of cargo cults. People suddenly start repeating some dogma with zero understanding why it's there in the first place.
I don't agree with this mistake/conflict categorization, but if you are going to use it, what I'm saying that mistake theorists don't seem particularly interested in understanding what freedom of speech was supposed to be either.
It's not possible to move forward when neither side is interested in reframing freedom of speech to what it was supposed to be.
felipec
unbelief
12d ago
they will attack "Open Ideas" just as easily.
Yes, but they can't just use a slogan for "freedom of speech", they would have to justify their position, which they can't.
Moreover, true freedom of speech actually welcomes attacks. The whole point is that if you are on the side of truth you should be able to deflect them easily.
felipec
unbelief
12d ago
This is a straw man, because nobody is saying anything remotely close to that.
If I say something controversial about COVID-19, freedom of speech would dictate that I shouldn't be banned from Facebook for it. That not "freedom of reach", that's "let my friends and family who have accepted me read what I wrote".
Same thing on YouTube, reddit, X/Twitter, and so on. My followers follow me for a reason.
But more importantly: why should I be fired from my job because of something I posted on social media? This has nothing to do with "freedom of reach", this is punishing people for challenging established dogma.
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
But that doesn’t explain anything, I called it fluff for a reason, it adds literally nothing.
It is 100% a fallacy, that's all the explanation that is needed.
You have poor theory of mind if you think bringing up the converse error fallacy addresses some gap in their accusation
If you don't see how an argument being fallacious is a problem, you are not a rational being.
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
I was referring to the statement "2+2=/=4 (mod 4)"
Regardless of what X is, you stated that if it's related to mathematics, there was 0% chance of you interpreting it wrong or your conclusion being wrong.
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
2+2 (standard arithmetic) is different than 2+2 (mod 4), and 4 (standard arithmetic) is different than 4 (mod 4).
And
Is that an admission that what most people think (4 (standard arithmetic)) is different than (4 (mod 4))?
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
You can train intuition (think, reflexes, like playing tennis) without any analytical thinking at all. Animals do it, no problem.
Reflexes are not intuition to me.
The main point of analytical thinking is to provide a check on intuition for when it goes wrong.
That's what you assume, but you couldn't have done your current level of analytical thinking without having done some analytical thinking in the past. A baby cannot do your level of analytical thinking, even a genius baby.
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
You weren't asking about 2+2 (mod 4) though.
No, I was asking about 2+2 (no context), as I have been made it clear countless times.
You were asking "2+2=" without context, and people answer "4", which is correct.
False. 2+2 (standard arithmetic) is different than 2+2 (mod 4), and 4 (standard arithmetic) is different than 4 (mod 4).
After many questions you finally accepted that:
(2+2=4 in standard arithmetic) and (2+2=0 (mod 4)) are not the same statement.
Are you going to backtrack from that claim?
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
You told me:
You're selectively gathering statements that fit your preconceived notion of what you think happened, ignoring evidence to the contrary
Then changed evidence for "the vague statements and perceived motivations of the actors involved", so:
You're selectively gathering statements that fit your preconceived notion of what you think happened, ignoring
evidencethe vague statements and perceived motivations of the actors involved to the contrary
felipec
unbelief
2yr ago
You cut out the part where you specified (2+2=4) in standard arithmetic before I answered. That's the misrepresentation.
False. That is understood, since you argued that (2+2=4) is always standard arithmetic, so no context is necessary.
(2+2=4 in standard arithmetic) and (2+2=0 (mod 4)) are not the same statement.
This is precisely what I interpreted, there is zero misrepresentation.
Now that you have repeated what I already said, except making the standard arithmetic explicit, instead of implicit, let's go back to the context that you keeping trying to run away from:
You very clearly said:
Did you just claim less than 0.0001% of people think 2+2=4?
As I pointed out numerous times, by 2+2=4 in this context you meant in standard arithmetic, which is what I interpreted correctly from the start, and I stated to you multiple times already.
You finally accepted that (2+2=4 in standard arithmetic) and (2+2=4 (mod 4)) are not the same statement, therefore even if 99.9999% of people think (2+2=4 in standard arithmetic) that does not equate to 99.9999% people thinking (2+2=4 (mod 4)), because they are different statements (as I already explained).
Therefore when you said "We think 4, 4 is 0", you were wrong.
Your statement expanded is "We (99.9999% people) think 4 (in standard arithmetic), 4 (in standard arithmetic) is 0 (in standard arithmetic)", which is clearly wrong. Period.
That is not true, and if even if it were, it has zero bearing on the importance of debate.
That is not an argument.
That is not an argument either.
If you are going to make the claim that white supremacists are conflict theorists, you have the burden of proof.
Personally I do not care. The only comparison between "mistake theorists" and "confllcit theorists" that matters here is in regards to freedom of speech, and I don't see any white supremacist trying trying to silence my ideas, or anyone's ideas.
More options
Context Copy link