commie

See, I don't feel that I'm made of matter so I didn't think you were simply talking about feelings. How does that feel, I wonder... can you describe the sensation or something?

I don't even know what that is. No, I was responding to: "I feel like free speech can be defended if not on universal grounds (which progressives today have little sympathy for) then at least on pragmatic ones." Or indeed to the antisemitic propaganda (such a fascinating take)! But I've always argued (in a context where it actually is a free speech issue) that hatred should be out in the open where it's harder to ignore. I certainly don't feel in agreement with this cringe-worthy stuff. It's not even supposed to solve the problems it exploits.

It would help if you were to produce a coherent alternative definition of free speech. Because I feel like you're distracting from actual free speech issues when you're bringing up free speech in a context in which no one's free speech is being infringed.

So to go back a few posts, if we really are going to assume materialism because it's the default among an influential minority, why not assume a version of solipsism that actually makes sense in the context of materialism (such as: you're all p-zombies) as well?

So the actual problem is both the psychology and values of "the mob", a much more serious and older problem than "cancel culture".

I do not. You brought materialism into this, and materialism does see it a certain way. Yes. That is basically what you said however (except for the "subtle difference").

That would require new physics... whatever for? I don't get it. That sounds like idealism, the opposite of materialism. I have no special source. For consensual definitions and interpretations, I would recommend hitting both WP and the SEP.

Yes, but it's hardly a novelty, is it? That this nefarious power is to a small extent decentralizing is not necessarily regrettable. In any case, I will reserve my empathy and concern for the "cancelled" outside of academia and corporate media. Indeed the main problem I foresee with the crowdsourcing of censorship is that it's not going to be primarily aimed at afflicting the powerful or average people for that matter but at independent artists and writers who have raised themselves ever so slightly above the crowd.

I still don't get it. What kind of materialism is compatible with your mind or brain being "all there is"? P-zombies on the other hand, now that's compatible with both materialism and solipsism (as I understand it) for instance.

Thank you. Well then it may be worth explaining "unearned privilege and authority". I do indeed figure than that in most cases, the people threatened do not deserve the privileges and authority they enjoy. That's because the standards in their fields are very low and the game always was about ideological conformity and cliques. So many journalists, scholars and so forth have been driven out of their fields or reduced to poverty and obscurity by this overprivileged bunch that I am firmly unmoved by their tiresome whining. The ones who are any good will keep swimming in well-deserved money and recognition regardless of how many honorifics are stripped from them anyway.

The government as well as the people who own the news have professionals working for them who understand this much better than you do. Underestimate people who have so much more power than you do at your peril. Money and government debt work differently in different countries but in the US, basically all debt is ultimately owed to the state. It has been so for decades and will not change anytime soon. If you want to worry about inflation and so forth, look into how much money the USA as a whole (private and public) owes to foreigners... complicated and ultimately not a big deal but much more relevant than the state's internal accounting!

It's generally a good idea to look at both sides of an argument you care about. But I'm not sure why I (or others here) should care about that particular argument. The letter is quite clear: it's not about that ("Whatever the arguments around each particular incident ..."). Of course it's fine if you care about something other than the thread's topic. Only I don't understand what's important about why some people want to oust Pinker from some association I never cared about. But if you were a linguist for instance, I'm sure you'd feel different.

Whoever asserts both materialism and "ego is all there is"? That seems very strange indeed. I also thought it was philosophical rather than subjective. This thread has shown that solipsism means different things to different people anyway. I've always found this derealization thing intriguing. Some of what people say about it remind me of a pleasant experience I have from time to time and some of what they say sounds like a mental illness... and I'm not sure what the connection is.

Why?

Any answer would have to hinge on who "you" is. Realistically, you are talking about a government with limited sovereignty as opposed to a smaller organization which would have little say in these matters or a truly sovereign polity which already has plenty of such buildings. In that case, the environment that matters most is not the air, soil, water and wildlife but the geopolitical environment because the first job of "you" is to survive. And if "you" have valuable stuff to mine and don't mine it, "you" are very likely to be overrun. So the first order of business is to control the mining in such a fashion that "you" don't piss off the people who could destroy "you" too much while using their needs for the services and stability "you" can provide to develop an infrastructure that would make "you" more able to stand up to them. As the saying goes, sell them the rope. Common mistakes at this stage include unrealistic ambitions and excessive borrowing.

So, once again, this isn't about the letter at all. Of course not, that would be insane.

Cryptic?!? What context could one possibly need? Forget the letter and its tired defense of unearned privilege and authority. The "good company" tweet is amazing in its shamelessness, and shows what the actual problem is. The context that some people were missing wasn't needed to make sense of the letter but to determine what team one would align oneself with by cheering or booing.

What would be the point?

You are trying to fight racism with easily-debunked racist falsehoods.

That's the whole point of identity politics. Obviously validating and reinforcing racist delusions isn't anti-racist work. People have done this kind of work earnestly in the past, for instance by roleplaying discrimination based on eye color.

If all your hypothetical CEO has to go on is a video like this one, he can experience all these words if he wants to because their meaning would be up to him. So this confusion would also be his choice. I would also hope that he understands that ripping words away from a culture and using them like fetishes is what his marketing department does. I guess that makes me an optimist.

Yes, that's what it means obviously. It could also be a joke but as it happens this name was chosen to provide context to my posts on another thread, so no.

I don't know what that means. If you told me what yours are as an example, I might figure it out.

What do you reckon is a real commie?

Wolff is merely wrong. You can learn from knowledgeable thinkers even if they are wrong about this or that. Varoufakis on the other hand is a politician who fucked up big time and now deliberately causes harm, probably because he thirsts for vengeance.