The Alt Right is an Ideologically Diverse Movement

[tod evans]

But IS the flag a symbol of freedom and liberty?

That's the question. It's not a matter of opinion.

Or are you pulling a Humpty Dumpty where any given symbol just means what you choose it to mean?

By no means should you value my opinion over yours. But you should value truth over falsehood.

Obviously it IS a matter of opinion, and I think your opinion is wrong.

In fact I've stated unequivocally that your opinion bolsters and encourages big government advocates to dig in their heels and cling harder to the flag of mine that they stole.

Thanks for playing their game.

[Superfluous Man]

Please review in your mind the meaning of the word "symbol."

Done.

And?

[Superfluous Man]

Obviously it IS a matter of opinion

That's not at all obvious to me.

Is the meaning of the symbol ∏ in mathematics also just a matter of opinion?

Is the meaning of any given word in any given context a matter of opinion? If so, then language is impossible, and we're not actually communicating.

And if what the flag symbolizes is a matter of opinion, then your post which started off this whole exchange criticizing me for having the wrong view of what the flag symbolizes makes no sense.

[tod evans]

That's not at all obvious to me.
.

That's apparent.

[Superfluous Man]

In fact I've stated unequivocally that your opinion bolsters and encourages big government advocates to dig in their heels and cling harder to the flag of mine that they stole.

They didn't steal it. It's their flag, their symbol. It always has been. There's not some time in the past when it wasn't.

One thing the statists are right about is the meaning of their flag.

Speaking of digging in heels, let's be honest. You already know that what I'm saying is true. You've practically admitted it already. I get that it's hard to backtrack.

So let me ask you, when did the statists steal the American flag?

[Superfluous Man]

That's apparent.

It's possible that I'm actually right.

[tod evans]

It's possible that I'm actually right.

Anything is possible.

And I'll grant you that you believe you are and will try to argue your viewpoint until your fingers fall off.

But you certainly haven't convinced me of anything other than you enjoy playing the statist/big government game...

[helmuth_hubener]

Done.

And?

A symbol has symbolic meaning, insofar as it is given it by the minds of those interpreting the symbol. It's totally subjective.

That's not "Humpty Dumpty" (whatever that means): it is the very nature and essence of symbols. A symbol can mean whatever you want it to mean, and will mean very different things to different people.

That there are symbols with shared meanings, it is true. Your example of mathematical symbols is a good example. These are "symbols" in a very different sense: communicative symbols, rather than abstract and emotional ones.

A better example closer to the kind of symbolic meaning a flag or crest can have in a heart of a person would be a painting (or other work of art). What is the meaning of a given painting? The artist may have had a very specific meaning in mind. But is that the "real" meaning? Is it not totally valid for each recipient of the art to form his own thoughts on the meaning of the piece? Not just valid, but inevitable!

What is the meaning of this poem, Superfluous Man? Is one meaning "right" and another meaning "wrong"?

The Road Not Taken

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I —
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

[otherone]

I think the last US flag worth saluting might have been this one.

Not even close...

[helmuth_hubener]

My favorite, of course:

[Superfluous Man]

A symbol has symbolic meaning, insofar as it is given it by the minds of those interpreting the symbol. It's totally subjective.

So, how about the meanings of the symbols you're using to say things to me right now?

Those are totally subjective?

Words don't mean things?

[Superfluous Man]

That's not "Humpty Dumpty" (whatever that means)

Humpty Dumpty was a famous character in Lewis Carrol's book, Through the Looking Glass.

Carrol used him to illustrate the absurdity of your philosophy of language.

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty..._Looking-Glass

As others have noticed over the years, the kind of dishonesty that you are advocating is similar to what's behind the living document interpretations of the Constitution (as well as other laws, the Bible, and any number of other things that people pull these stunts with). It looks like your position is much more extreme than that of liberal judges though.

To answer your question, yes, one meaning is right, and the other is wrong. That's what makes symbols symbols, they mean things.

ETA: The irony of you adding the parenthesis "whatever that means" in your remark to me just struck me. I'll let you mull over why it's ironic, and hopefully it will sink in.

[CPUd]

Humpty Dumpty had the best words.

[Ender]

My favorite, of course:

So what do you think the symbol of the snake is?

[helmuth_hubener]

your philosophy of language

the kind of dishonesty that you are advocating

Grt a higher IQ. Seriously. If you're going to be insufferable, get a higher IQ. It just doesn't work otherwise.

MI'll let you mull it over.

Mull...mull...mull

[helmuth_hubener]

Humpty Dumpty had all the best words.

Believe me!

[helmuth_hubener]

So what do you think the symbol of the snake is?

Lucifer, the Devil, taking on his Slinky Form.

[Ender]

Lucifer, the Devil, taking on his Slinky Form.

Actually, it's a symbol for Jesus; that's why Eve was fooled in The Garden.

The staff that Moses held up to cure those that would but look up, was a symbol of the saving power of The Christ.

John 3:14
Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,

John 3:15
that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life.

Numbers 21:9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

Also:

Different Images of Moses & The Snake

In one of these miracles, Moses is commanded to throw down his staff, and when he does so, it turns into a snake (nachash). God then tells Moses to grab the snake by the tail, and when he does so the snake reverts back into a staff. This miracle, along with two others, is used to convince the Jews that Moses is the legitimate messenger of God.

In Parashat Vaera, a similar miracle takes place. Moses and Aaron confront Pharaoh, bearing God’s command that the Jews be set free. Not surprisingly, their request meets with cynicism and rejection. However, to demonstrate that they have, in fact, been sent by God, Aaron is commanded to throw down his staff, which turns into a serpent (tanin).

[helmuth_hubener]

that's why Eve was fooled in The Garden.

You mean Satan took on the WRONG symbol? How dare he?! What nerve! No wonder we think he's so evil.

By being sentimental about the good things the American flag stands for, Tod Evans and also I are being downright Satanic! As are virtually all English speakers who misinterpret Stevenson. As is everyone who has a wrong theory about why Mona Lisa smiles. And definitely everyone who appreciates Pollack in any way (these last actually may very well be disturbed! ).

Being tedious is no fun. But, OK fine: AGAIN, there are different types of symbols in this world. And many, especially artistic and ambiguous ones such as multicolor ensigns, are open to interpretation.

Old Glory pretty universally stands for something to do with America. That much is true. Tod chooses to focus on the good things about America, the truly noble and heroic elements of her character (and so do I). You choose to focus on her crimes and brutalities and murders.

Just two different mind sets, two different perspectives, two different attitudes.

[Ender]

You mean Satan took on the WRONG symbol? How dare he?! What nerve! No wonder we think he's so evil.

By being sentimental about the good things the American flag stands for, Tod Evans and also I are being downright Satanic! As are virtually all English speakers who misinterpret Stevenson. As is everyone who has a wrong theory about why Mona Lisa smiles. And definitely everyone who appreciates Pollack in any way (these last actually may very well be disturbed! ).

Being tedious is no fun. But, OK fine: AGAIN, there are different types of symbols in this world. And many, especially artistic and ambiguous ones such as multicolor ensigns, are open to interpretation.

Old Glory pretty universally stands for something to do with America. That much is true. Tod chooses to focus on the good things about America, the truly noble and heroic elements of her character (and so do I). You choose to focus on her crimes and brutalities and murders.

Just two different mind sets, two different perspectives, two different attitudes.

LOL

Is that an answer to my post to you? I was just pointing out a symbol that most don't know about- thought it was cool & that you'd enjoy it.

[helmuth_hubener]

LOL

Is that an answer to my post to you? I was just pointing out a symbol that most don't know about- thought it was cool & that's you'd enjoy it.

No, that's cool Ender. I had actually heard of that before, but still it's neat. I'm still on about S. Man's low-IQ insufferable pompousness to tell everybody how Right he is about his mushy, baseless, totally subjective feelings about totally subjective pieces of cloth and to endlessly harangue those whose (equally) subjective feelings he decrees Wrong.

[undergroundrr]

I'm still on about S. Man's low-IQ insufferable pompousness

Dude, chill pill. Superfluous Man has been right about everything I've ever seen him post about. You can understand how frustrating it is to argue with people who are wrong. Stand in his shoes for a minute.

[timosman]

Dude, chill pill. Superfluous Man has been right about everything I've ever seen him post about. You can understand how frustrating it is to argue with people who are wrong. Stand in his shoes for a minute.

Superfluos man is a beacon of light gracing us with his presence for the last few months. I am even considering giving Zippy's favorite spot to him.

[helmuth_hubener]

Dude, chill pill. Superfluous Man has been right about everything I've ever seen him post about. You can understand how frustrating it is to argue with people who are wrong. Stand in his shoes for a minute.

It actually is not frustrating to argue (I'd prefer discuss) with people who are wrong. It's INTERESTING to discuss things with people who are "wrong"! That means they at least have something to say (that's rare enough), and something different than what you're saying (bonus!), and maybe, maaaaybe, even something you haven't already heard before (Super Bonus! Very rare!). And you can go back and forth and get some new ideas and be creative and often come to a synthesis of sorts.

What could be frustrating, depending on your mood, is when people are less intelligent than you. When they just don't get what you're saying (or, even worse, pretend not to). Me personally, I can deal with that. Dumb people are cool. I'm down with them.

But what does get old is dumb people who are extremely condescending, pompous, know-it-alls. That's a bad mix, at least for me. Don't like that.

For example: in my post regarding symbols, I stated the following:

"That there are symbols with shared meanings, it is true. Your example of mathematical symbols is a good example. These are "symbols" in a very different sense: communicative symbols, rather than abstract and emotional ones.

"A better example closer to the kind of symbolic meaning a flag or crest can have in a heart of a person would be a painting (or other work of art). What is the meaning of a given painting? The artist may have had a very specific meaning in mind. But is that the "real" meaning? Is it not totally valid for each recipient of the art to form his own thoughts on the meaning of the piece? Not just valid, but inevitable!"

And then I further illustrated with a highly symbolic poem whose universal "meaning" is very different, essentially the opposite, of the poet's intended meaning. Thus there are at least two competing meanings with good claim to be canonical.

So, that was my post. Now read Man's response to it. Does he seem to have read these two paragraphs? No, he does not. This is stupid, either plain or playing. He replies as if I am an Enemy of Consistency, of Language, and of the Constitution, when I have already headed off this reply in advance! I already thought of it! Funnily enough (but not too surprising -- this is a liberty forum) I even thought of the living document angle specifically! And so I made sure to make my true thoughts clear, unambiguous, and well-explained. I communicated the thoughts pretty well; I give myself a B at least. Don't you think? And I made it perfectly clear that I understood what Man was saying. So what does he do?

He repeats ad nauseum what he already said and what I already made clear I already understood, and then he totally ignores the new thought that I had introduced. Just ignores it. This is a recipe for a total stand-still of a conversation. Just total (intentional?) stagnation. Never say anything new, never acknowledge anything anyone else says that's new. Completely misunderstand (intentionally?) what everyone else says, until they give up in frustration. Or, as you probably see it: defeat.

That is not communication. That is a failure of communication. It's lame. It's weaselly. It's draining. It's divisive. And, most condemning epithet of all: it's BORING.

[BSWPaulsen]

Dude, chill pill. Superfluous Man has been right about everything I've ever seen him post about. You can understand how frustrating it is to argue with people who are wrong. Stand in his shoes for a minute.

Ahahahahaha.

A fine demonstration of hyperbole.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

Superfluos man is a beacon of light gracing us with his presence for the last few months. I am even considering giving Zippy's favorite spot to
him.

You should as Zippy clearly should not have it.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Well, Fashy Goy Memes is apparently a real thing.

https://twitter.com/fashy_goy_memes

[RestorationOfLiberty]

Immigrants aren't invaders. Go read a dictionary if you don't understand the difference.


Secondly, you don't own the land the "nation" sits on. Your right to limit the movement of anyone across any land begins and ends with land you directly and privately own. Your assertion of the power to regulate land you do not own is tyranny, the assumption of a power you do not have and which you force on other through violence.

Thirdly, you're oppressing the people in your nation as much a syou are the immigrant by demanding the right to regulate my property, my money, and my association rights, as well as overthrowing the free market and thus oppressing my rights to buy and sell with whomsoever I wish by ending the free flow of human capital. Not to mention your large national government empowered to force its will on people will not stop with immigration.

You own your house. You do not own the nation. Therefore it doesn't matter what you want. It only matters what you have a right to do. This is what separates us from the Progressives. We recognize that inalienable rights means the government can't just force something on people because the most people "want it."

Finally, my Mexican neighbor's Cinco de Mayo celebration doesn't prevent me from celebrating Independence Day. My Chinese neighbor's celebration of Chinese New Year doesn't change my ability to celebrate the New Year on Jan. 1st. I can be fully myself while everyone else does their own thing. So can you. Therefore your argument makes no sense.

Really, have you seen how they vote? They do prevent you from doing, owning, keeping a great deal in many areas, but I guess you just ignore that as it proves your entire world view to be a total failure.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

Yeah, I get it: no such thing as race, as culture, as loyalty to a country. That much I get. I understand you on that, even though I differ, strongly.

Where I get lost is why it's so hateful/racist/evil in your mind -- and many many others on the left, it's not just you -- to have people distributed. To have Switzerland remain Swiss. Are the Swiss really committing hate crime and genocide by simply not inviting the population of the world to invade their country? It seems like their prerogative. I mean, if the Swiss govt refused to let me enter, that would be unjust and unlibertarian, but it's hard for me to get too worked up about it. Those Swiss politicians have no right to do that, it's not their country, but it's not mine either! If 90% of the Swiss don't want me there, that's awfully close to the unanimous consent libertarianism would technically require. Am I really being oppressed by simply not being given the privilege of entering their mountain refuge? I don't think so. It's not a big oppression.

I just don't get it.

Maybe you can explain it to me?

Because it threatens their entire world view, it proves that nations can exist, and exist very well existing among and by themselves. That without hordes of low IQed 3rd worlders everything chugs along very nicely, no need for gang units, welfare offices, social workers galore, no means for "Certain groups" to pit groups against each other for fun, power, and profit.

It proves their idea of human interchangeable to be a total fraud, and makes them confront the fact that some people value some things, others do not and those who do not value Liberty, property rights, self defense, etc have to be kept out to begin with, and those among us removed/disenfranchised.

Some people would rather live in a comforting lie, even if it means losing everything they hold dear rather then pick up the rifle of truth and put down the threats to our rights, culture, and the people who created and the only people who are capable of propagating it.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Whites have their issues too: