In the highly polarized modern world, everything said is analyzed to try to determine what side of an issue the speaker is on, in order to inform the friend-or-foe mental circuitry.

Let me make it easy for you all: I'm on the other side. I'm always on the other side.

This is the fundamental nature of a skeptic. It is also a crucial stance for a scientist to be trying to disprove his/her own theories rather than looking for confirmation of them.

I speak in order to learn, not in order to influence. I put out my honest thoughts every time, trying to give weight to whichever side of the issue seemed under represented, knowing that my thoughts aren't quite right or balanced yet, but I put them out and listen for the responses which I hope will direct my attention askew to the things I was not considering when I spoke. That is what I love about free speech. It is how we think in groups.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Consent, freedom of speech and an open mind, multi-angle information provided, can allow us to make more objective judgments and decisions. A good decision making = 90% multi-channel information access +10% decision making ability. #Nostr has no intelligent algorithm recommendation, so that each of us can rationally exchange ideas, without being triggered by the algorithm of antagonism and hatred, you don't like any discussion can end, he won't be recommended to you again by the algorithm and make you angry.

🌿 Lens Protocol, Claim Your Handle.

👉 https://lenspro.pages.dev Claim Your handle(Rewards 0.2 to 500 ETH).

💰 Check to see if you are eligible to claim your handle.

👀 You can use it across all the apps powered by Lens Protocol.

WHY LENS?

1. Lens Culinaris 🌿 is a tall, branched plant with pods of lens-shaped, small lentils. It has a symbiotic

relationship with certain soil bacteria. If the roots are left in the ground, they will provide a source

of nitrogen for its neighbor.

2. LENS PROTOCOL is a composable and decentralized social graph. It lets creators take ownership of their

content wherever they go in the digital garden of the decentralized internet.

WHY POLYGON?

Earth first. Polygon's eco-friendly blockchain allows each publication on Lens Protocol to have a low carbon

footprint while being on a low-cost, secure blockchain.

LENS PROTOCOL Building a social network is hard.

Lens Protocol makes it easy.

Lens Protocol is a composable and decentralized social graph,ready for you to build on so you can focus on creating a great

experience, not scaling your users.

TEND THE SOIL

BUILD A BETTER SOCIAL PLATFORM

Lens Protocol is a user-owned, open social graph that any application can plug into.

EXPLORE THE ROOTS

DIG INTO THE KEY FUNCTIONS

Mint a profile, follow

others, create and collect any publications, completely on-chain.

NATIVE SOIL

DISCOVER WEB3 NATIVE SOCIAL MEDIA

At its core, Lens Protocol is Web3 native, so from root to bud, it’s been built with

features to serve the Web3 community.

SOAK UP THE SUN

USERS OWN THE GARDEN

Own your content.

Own your social graph.

Own your data.

THE LAST SOCIAL MEDIA HANDLE

YOU'LL EVER HAVE TO CREATE

A PERMISSIONLESS, NON-CUSTODIAL

SOCIAL MEDIA PROFILE

With Lens Protocol, you are in control. You own your profile, where you use it, how you use it,

and even how you monetize it. That means you have the power over your content, and it’s all right there,

as an NFT, in your wallet. It’s not just easy. It’s how digital identity should be: yours.

Explore hundreds of applications built on top of Lens Protocol.

Brett Weinstein was talking about this exact thing. Very well put by yourself sir. I’ll try to post the clip. 🙏

999 times out of a thousand I hate when someone seems to agree with me. You might be the other 1 out of this year's 1K.

I, on the other hand, want to make it hard for you all: I'm not on the other side. I'm on no side. I’m antiside (which seems like it might yet be a side, but I think that's just an unavoidable artifact of language).

If you think I'm on your side, you're probably wrong. If you think I'm on the other side, you’re probably wrong.

The problem with free speech is that most people really don't have much to say that is worthwhile. But the problem with censorship - which is a far, far more dire problem - is that when you stop people from expressing themselves freely, you are not stopping them from thinking and feeling what they think and feel.

You are just making sure that whatever they think and feel that you don't want them to express will come out sideways and with far more negative force than if you just let everyone express themselves freely in a natural discourse.

I don't know how this is not perfectly obvious to the anti-liberal, faux-left of today.