site banner
Day Week Month Year All
Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 6 of 6 results for

domain:forecasting.substack.com

Small-Scale Question Sunday for October 5, 2025

Book of the Dead 3: Masquerade by RinoZ. Pretty confident that #4 will be up next on my reading list.

Small-Scale Question Sunday for October 5, 2025

"Due to the federal shutdown", data.census.gov is not responding to queries. You may want to ask again when the shutdown has ended.

Freedom of speech has been poisoned and we need to reframe it

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.

Small-Scale Question Sunday for October 5, 2025

So, what are you reading?

Still on The Eternal Dissident: Rabbi Leonard I. Beerman and the Radical Imperative to Think and Act.

It seems strange that a Rabbi would proclaim himself agnostic and have his first sermon be about how Adam ought to have eaten the whole fruit of knowledge and not just part of it, but I have to agree with the introduction that there is an authenticity to it. Beerman, if he is to be believed, was inspired by the Spinozan God-as-nature idea, and argued that authentic doubt can be a religious stance.

The tropes fit perfectly into today's leftism: social justice, activism, inequality, racism, oppression, but these things must have made a different impression before Current Year. Various dubious aspects pepper the narrative, like support for the Rosenbergs. If there's one thing I've taken away from it, it is the reminder that I'm not exactly a church-goer myself, and that perhaps a renewed study of my relation to God is in order.

Freedom of speech has been poisoned and we need to reframe it

white supremacists are generally conflict theorists as well.

Let's look at some criteria and see how many apply to white supremacists:

  1. Conflict theorists treat politics as war. I don't see how that applies to white supremacists.
  2. Conflict theorists view debate as having a minor clarifying role at best. Doesn't apply.
  3. Conflict theorists treat the asymmetry of sides as their first and most important principle. Irrelevant.
  4. Conflict theorists think this is more often a convenient excuse than a real problem. Nothing to do with white supremacists.
  5. Conflict theorists think you can save the world by increasing passion. Nope.
  6. For a conflict theorist, intelligence is inadequate or even suspect. Definitely not.
  7. 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.
  8. Conflict theorists think that stopping George Soros / the Koch brothers is the most important thing in the world. Nope.
  9. Conflict theorists think racism is a conflict between races. Ironically, no.
  10. 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.

Freedom of speech has been poisoned and we need to reframe it

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.