Mustn't: Difference between revisions

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1834499273406185522

|content=We seem to have opened the doors to hell because there is now no basis for ought. And we need must and mustn’t.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1834498097025876438

|content=Said differently, '''assume that society may have previously used religion and/or nature to create a coordinated sense of “ought”, “must” and “mustn’t”.'''

In the absence of both, there is no coordinating source. And we may need one or the other to coordinate a needed sense of obligation.

|content=The is–ought problem is almost the same as the naturalistic fallacy.

How do you mean to get rid of it, and why?

|content=Mark this prediction: the First Amendment alone *cannot* save free speech. If you lose the nebulous concept of the unthinkable in common culture you will end up with laws against “Hate Speech” because directed murder and mayhem will normalize and spread like wildfire. You either load the prohibition against the unthinkable, on culture or you will be forced to load it upon the law.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2000768442098704883

|content=What the hell is happening to our leadership class? This IS what I meant by [[Can’t vs Mustn’t|“Mustn’t”]] in previous posts in discussion.

 

|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein

|content=“passed away together with his wife, Michelle, reportedly due to the anger he caused others….” etc. etc.

From a sitting @POTUS.

I’m not afflicted with TDS. I can call balls & strikes, and this is madness and pure evil. You [[Can’t vs Mustn’t|mustn’t]] EVER do this from *our* Oval Office. Period.

|media1=ERW-X-post-2000767299167596634-G8QmqeqaYAAM9K9.jpg

|timestamp=3:22 AM · Dec 16, 2025

''When people will not defend the universities, they will not defend our public schools, there's no moment where some somebody in a position of authority says "enough"—The New York Times is not meant to be a propaganda instrument. The universities are not meant to be indoctrination camps. Science is not meant to be a post modernists free from all—'''There is a concept of mustn't. There are things you mustn't do. You're permitted to do them.''' They're not necessarily illegal. And it's not a question that you shouldn't do it, like, "all things being equal, I wouldn't do that if I were you". They're just things that you mustn't do. So the most frequent example I give is, you should be allowed to burn the flag and you must not burn the flag. It's not really "well, aren't I free to burn it?" Yep. "If I call it self expression, are you telling me I can't?" You can, but you mustn't. '''Well, where does this mustn't come from? It's kind of a first principles thing. It's part of our culture. It's part of the [[Oral Torah vs Written Torah|Oral Torah]]. If we don't start exercising adulthood, in terms of a culture, in terms of getting rid of these problems, people are taking away a very different message, which is that every institution is over.''' That everyone who—All there is, is money. There is no concept of a compact, or an agreement, or an understanding that isn't enforceable. A lot of what's going on with the blockchain is, blockchain is people talking about, how do you deal with zero trust? So, right now, what we keep wanting to show is that everyone is bankrupt. Praying, you just love money, you went into physics for the money. It's like, I don't even know what to make of these things.