felipec
unbelief
Freedom of speech maximalist who is anti-woke, anti-orthodoxy, anti-establishment, and anti-capitalist.
User ID: 1796
felipec
unbelief
23d ago
I'm arguing that this is what flags mean to people.
That's not an argument, that's an assertion.
Implicit in the above statement is my evidence for it
Evidence is not proof.
What you are doing is literally the black swan fallacy. You assert that all swans are white, then you provide a post hoc rationalization for your assertion: here are some white swans. This is not proof that your assertion is necessarily true.
There's a well known method to solve the black swan fallacy, called falsifiability. Instead of looking for white swans, we should be looking for black swans. In this particular case we should be looking for evidence where people consider a particular flag to be the opposite of what you claim.
If you cared about truth, that's the evidence you should be looking for. But you are doing the opposite of what you should be doing: you are ignoring all the evidence that contradicts your assertion.
I have invited you to offer contrary evidence
Yes, but you have already spelled out exactly how you are going to dismiss it, and on what grounds.
The problem with claims of what they ought to do is that such claims are not necessarily bounded by reality.
Then why are you arguing that people ought to do these common inferences?
Will I? Why would I do that?
Yes, because you are doing a post hoc rationalization: you are starting from a pre-established conclusion, and selectively choosing the evidence that fits, and rejecting the evidence that doesn't.
Whatever meaning is ascribed, I'm going to argue that it needs to actually account for the common behaviors of those waving the flag.
So any evidence that contradicts your assertion must be rejected on the basis that it's not "common behavior". So by definition all swans are white, because all the black swans we find are "not common".
More generally, it's not clear to me that most people, or even any people, "know what they mean" themselves. Language is necessarily imprecise at the best of times, and often people speak carelessly, even about things they care deeply about. This is not a retreat to infinite subjectivity, just an acceptance that human minds are complicated, and introspection is difficult.
So when evidence supports your claim, you treat language as precise; when it doesn't, you appeal to its imprecision. That asymmetry reveals a confirmation bias.
Your assertion is simply unfalsifiable.
felipec
unbelief
1mo ago
That being said, while you've made it clear that you strongly disagree, you have given little explanation as to why, and you appear to have ignored the arguments I put forward.
You have not made any argument.
You are making claims that are completely unsubstantiated presuming they are true, just because you said so: ipse dixit fallacy.
Flags defend ideas by their very existence, because the purpose of a flag is to serve as a physically-tangible token of loyalty to an abstract idea.
That is an assertion without a proof.
Why do flags serve as a token of loyalty? Because you said so. That's not an argument.
And yet, people make such inferences commonly, you will not be able to stop them from doing so, and communication requires accepting this reality and working around it.
Stating what people do has no bearing on what people ought to do. Effective communication requires interpreting what the author of a message actually meant, not whatever people commonly infer.
This is the main problem with modern communication: people do not care what other people actually meant. I can provide you with a completely different meaning of the rainbow flag that millions of people agree with, but you are going to claim their interpretation is wrong. Why? Because you say so.
felipec
unbelief
1mo ago
There is something comical to me about this having 0 points on this site, to me it's a well intentioned post and title and yet it will never work.
It's even more ironic when you read the comments, because not a single one of the responses demonstrate they understand what freedom of speech actually is.
So they are actually demonstrating my point by example. I do not care about "Open Ideas", I care about a proper understanding of actual freedom of speech.
The fact that people are downvoting reflexively, and not a single one of the replies seems to be interested in the history of freedom of speech and what is was supposed to mean, proves my point.
Whenever there is a drift of terminology from a core useful idea (like what has happened to "freedom of speech") I often meditate on whether others believed the original idea at all. It feels a bit bleak to think of it that way, though.
This thought drives deep into the whole point of actual freedom of speech.
Ideas are never static: they evolve over time. The idea of "freedom of speech" is no exception: it started as one thing, it evolved to something else, and then devolved to something entirely different. Virtually no one today ask the question why was "freedom of speech" introduced in the first place, in the 17th century. Even less interested in how this term evolved over time.
All they care about is that they can say "freedom of speech doesn't mean X", when that suits their purposes, of course. But since its inception, the importance of freedom of speech what it is, the importance was what it ought to be.
If we start from scratch with a new term such as Open Ideas, people would be forced to actually think and argue what Open Ideas ought to be, regardless of what they wrongly believe freedom of speech "is". But somehow that is not obvious to this supposedly intelligent and knowledgeable audience. At least, not the vast majority of them.
It seems to me you are the only one that gets what to me is obvious.
Most of human communication operates through these sorts of assumptions.
No, it does not. You are stating "these sorts of assumptions" as if they are identical when in fact the sort of assumptions are completely different.
Just because an apple assumption and an orange assumption are both assumptions, doesn't mean they are of the same sort.
This is a false equivalence fallacy,
Can a book defend its ideas in open debate?
Yes. Many people do read quotes from books in open debates precisely to argue what the author clearly did not intend to say.
It seems to me that a flag can as well.
It doesn't matter what "it seems to you". No one has ever argued in an open debate what a flag is intending to say, because all reasonable people understand that flags don't inherently say anything.
But even in the case when somebody is quoting a book verbatim, that doesn't mean they are saying anything about the quote. Sometimes they use the quote to criticize it, and argue precisely the opposite is true. Which means just repeating a quote from a book should not be assumed to be an endorsement of all the ideas contained in that book.
Inference is a necessary and irreducible part of human communication, which is necessarily lossy, compressed, and unreliable in the best of times.
Yes, and in the worst of times it's completely detached from reality, which is the case.
Again a false equivalence fallacy on all inferences: they are not all the same.
felipec
unbelief
1mo ago
A white supremacist is by definition committed to the idea of their race deserving to reign supreme, so your criterion absolutely applies.
That is not true, and if even if it were, it has zero bearing on the importance of debate.
????????!?!
That is not an argument.
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
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.
felipec
unbelief
1mo 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
1mo 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
1mo 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
1mo 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
1mo 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
1mo 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
1mo 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
1mo 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
1mo 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
1mo 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
1mo 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
1mo 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.
I have no affinity to any tribe, but it is a fact that illegal immigrants are violating the law, the blue tribe doesn't have any regards for the law (unless it suits them), and they have lied multiple times in the recent past. Given that context I don't see why anyone who isn't in the blue tribe -- including the red tribe -- should consider these "horrible stories" as having any credence.
More options
Context Copy link