The Portal Wiki

Mustn't: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Mustn't (edit)

Revision as of 03:08, 21 December 2025

1,336 bytes added ,  21 December 2025
m
BeefSandwich27 moved page Can’t vs Mustn’t to Mustn't
m (BeefSandwich27 moved page Can’t vs Mustn’t to Mustn't)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 29: Line 29:


== On X ==
== On X ==
=== 2024 ===
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1834499273406185522
|name=Eric Weinstein
|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.
In the absence of religion or nature, there is no strong ought. And society needs ought.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1834498097025876438
|name=Eric Weinstein
|content=Contrarian opinion lightly held:
The so-called “Naturalistic Fallacy” may be just that. But we should probably rapidly reconsider the wisdom of trying to get rid of it. Or even pointing it out at scale.
|timestamp=Sep 13
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1834500203992547393
|name=Eric Weinstein
|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.
|timestamp=Sep 13
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Selfobserver-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Selfobserver/status/1834498767388590224
|name=Self Observer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Selfobserver
|username=Selfobserver
|content=The is–ought problem is almost the same as the naturalistic fallacy.
How do you mean to get rid of it, and why?
|timestamp=Sep 13
}}
|timestamp=12:48 AM · Sep 13, 2024
}}
=== 2025 ===


{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Line 60: Line 103:


Shouldn’t (Bad)</br>
Shouldn’t (Bad)</br>
'''Mustn’t''' (Unthinkable)</br>
[[Can’t vs Mustn’t|Mustn’t]] (Unthinkable)</br>
'''Can’t''' (Illegal)
[[Can’t vs Mustn’t|Can’t]] (Illegal)


If broadly celebrating political murder of national figures is merely “Shouldn’t”, we will end up with “Can’t”.
If broadly celebrating political murder of national figures is merely “Shouldn’t”, we will end up with “Can’t”.


'''Free speech is **all** about “Mustn’t”.'''
[[Can’t vs Mustn’t|Free speech is **all** about “Mustn’t”.]]


'''We bet all of society on “Mustn’t”.'''
[[Can’t vs Mustn’t|We bet all of society on “Mustn’t”.]]


It’s hard to remember how many times I’ve had to say this. It’s like we don’t understand and teach our own culture’s particularly American genius.
It’s hard to remember how many times I’ve had to say this. It’s like we don’t understand and teach our own culture’s particularly American genius.
Line 88: Line 131:
{{Tweet
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1834499273406185522
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2000768442098704883
|name=Eric Weinstein
|name=Eric Weinstein
|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.
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|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.
 
This isn’t covered by [[Can’t vs Mustn’t|“Can’t”]]. You *are* legally allowed to do this.


In the absence of religion or nature, there is no strong ought. And society needs ought.
And it isn’t covered by “Shoudn’t”. Like “That was bad. He really shouldn’t have said it.”
|thread=
|thread=
{{Tweet
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1834498097025876438
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2000767299167596634
|name=Eric Weinstein
|content=Contrarian opinion lightly held:
 
The so-called “Naturalistic Fallacy” may be just that. But we should probably rapidly reconsider the wisdom of trying to get rid of it. Or even pointing it out at scale.
|timestamp=Sep 13
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1834500203992547393
|name=Eric Weinstein
|name=Eric Weinstein
|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”.'''
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=“passed away together with his wife, Michelle, reportedly due to the anger he caused others
.” etc. etc.


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.
From a sitting @POTUS.
|timestamp=Sep 13
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Selfobserver-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Selfobserver/status/1834498767388590224
|name=Self Observer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Selfobserver
|username=Selfobserver
|content=The is–ought problem is almost the same as the naturalistic fallacy.


How do you mean to get rid of it, and why?
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.
|timestamp=Sep 13
|media1=ERW-X-post-2000767299167596634-G8QmqeqaYAAM9K9.jpg
|timestamp=Last edited 3:17 AM · Dec 16, 2025
}}
}}
|timestamp=12:48 AM · Sep 13, 2024
|timestamp=3:22 AM · Dec 16, 2025
}}
}}


Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/22209...25132"