A response to FlightyQuinn
For some reason I cannot reblog your post @flightyquinn. I can still tag you, so I don’t think you’ve blocked me. It’s probably just tumblr being tumblr. Regardless here is the post that I will be responding to.
First of all, I am not defending the right of people to have pointless fights. I am defending the freedom of speech which includes the right to have pointless fights. I am not saying that eliminativism is right or wrong for acting in the way that he did. I am merely suggesting that they had every right to do what they did, and that they should be allowed to do what they did. They can most certainly be criticized for doing what they did, and they can be told that their behavor is wrong. However, just because we might not agree with the behavior does not mean that we suggest that the individual was wrong for speaking out. We merely suggest that the person spoke out in an incorrect manner not that the entire process of speaking out was incorrect. That was one of my issues with your post: You seemed to be making the assumption that becasue you did not agree with eliminativism’s behavior that his speaking out was entirely unwarranted. If you were playing devil’s advocate then take that as less a rebuttal of your own personal position and more a rebuttal to your assumed position. It makes no difference to me.
Second, I am quite aware of what the OP said. I believe that I indicated that I thought such a post was entirely inappropriate for the medium of tumblr, and that if the Op did not wish the post to be responded to that it should have been a private post, not a post at all but a message, or simply an errant thought. Attempting post something so that only people will agree with you on a public forum like tumblr is a little naive to say the least. And I also stated that the OP could have blocked eliminativism or indeed any person that they did not wish to converse with. Both could have ignored the other’s post, both chose not to and therefore both are at fault. However, I find the OP’s manner of conducting themselves to be significantly more abhorrent and flawed than eliminaitvism’s, so I am slightly more on elinminaitivism’s side than the OP’s and I judged you to be the opposite. Again, that is down to personal preference but insisting that someone is wrong for exercising the purpose of a medium within TOS and doing so civilly is utterly ridiculous to me.
Third, there doesn’t need to be a falsehood in order to argue about truth. There can be a restriction or a perceived willful ignorance to the truth as well. Someone saying “what you are saying might be the truth but I am going to ignore it becasue it does not fit my narrative” or stating that they are going to ignore something solely due to the people saying it is going to create the same sort of reaction as stating a blatant falsehood. Because in a way, both of those positions are in fact a blatant falsehood: Just an implied one as opposed to one made explicit. And who is to say what the point of an argument is? Some (including myself) would say that an argument in and of itself is a point, but perhaps eliminativism was trying to reach people who were on the fence about the OP’s point, perhaps they were trying to point out the lack of logic in the point, or perhaps they simply wished to respond to the OP and attempt to have a discourse despite what the Op said. All of these and more are potnetial points. Some of them ae better than others, but they are all points. Thus, I don’t agree that this argument, or indeed most arguments can ever be pointless ina subjective sense. In an objective one (i.e. actually accomplishing something meaningful) then you might have more ground to stand on, but by that standard tumblr itself is mostly pointless.
And the guillotine thing was a reference to your “sticking my neck out” tag and the beginning of my response (I am the one to do the chopping, therefore I am the guillotine; guillotines go “swish”). It was a way to tie things all together. I don’t want to be called the guillotine. That would be very silly.