You said the following things that I find to be extreme:
All previous history is irrelevant.
Events must not be justified.
(Victims were) targeted for not just murder but torture of the most barbaric heinous and intensely personal kind (I think that is extreme with the facts)
All their suffering is entirely Hama's fault
I find all those views to be extreme.
I love that nostr allows more speech
Normally I dont watch videos. But if Uncle Bob posts it, I'll take the time to watch it.
You are two people I respect very highly in the nostr universe.
I'm particularly interested in what nostr:npub1qqqqqq0u2gj96tdfvqymdqn739k4s0h9rzdwyegfmalv28j7a5ssh5ntu2 said yesterday on stage at nostrasia.
And that is: "how can nostr be used to spread love". He argued convincingly to me that love is a universal communication method. How can we show it.
I've been thinking of 3 things to inform me:
1. Fight Club: "They say we hurt the ones we love. Well it works both ways"
2. Joseph Campbell: "For me the great teaching of Jesus was, love your enemy" (topical!)
3. Thomas Mann's erotic irony: Perfection is not lovable, it is only admirable. The only things you can love are imperfections. And your measure as an artist is the more imperfections you can describe as an arrow of truth, with the healing balm of love.
My thought is to create an app, where you have something you want to say. But for a few sats you can add some love to the comment. Say the truth but in a kinder way. On one side of the app you see gratitude, all the nice things that person has done for you, and for others. Your recent positive encounters.
Dont mean to hijack this thread, but maybe we can solve a lot of the problems on social media with more speech and more love!
From: MelvinCarvalho<-D... at 11/03 10:30
> I love that nostr allows more speech
...
> Dont mean to hijack this thread, but maybe we can solve a lot of the problems on social media with more speech and more love!
Over the years I have found that I love my debating partners. The more we _respectfully_ disagree, the more affection I feel towards them because they are teaching me, and being taught by me. But it's a tigh-rope walk. That affection can quickly turn sour when the respect is replaced by derision. Too many friends have fallen off that tight-rope.
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
I've always found the anger to be reactionary, temporary, if we keep talking it works itself out and the love and respect is long term. I usually aspire to come to some common ground before quitting, even if it is emotionally taxing for me. Sometimes I have a lot of background opinion to aire first so it may take a while.
But these client ideas are interesting. Maybe different techniques could be trial run to see how they affect the discourse.
Happens to me too sometimes 🫂
I'm open to suggestions.
I can imagine a "mode" of interaction called "debate mode". Two or more users agree to enter this mode. The messages sent in the debate mode are public, but each costs the sender N sats. That N is distributed amongst all the other debaters and is a function of the length of each message.
So, let's say that A, B, and C agree to debate mode. A public message is sent announcing the debate. From that point on messages that are replies in the thread of that message will be tagged with the debate agreement. When A replies with a message of 250 characters, 250 sats will be distributed to B and C.
It costs to be a loudmouth, and it pays to sit and listen. On the other hand if you think you have something worth saying, then you pay to say it, and others are paid to listen to it.
That would be fun to implement. I doubt anyone would actually agree to use it. ;-)
From: mikedilger at 11/03 17:37
> I've always found the anger to be reactionary, temporary, if we keep talking it works itself out and the love and respect is long term. I usually aspire to come to some common ground before quitting, even if it is emotionally taxing for me. Sometimes I have a lot of background opinion to aire first so it may take a while.
>
> But these client ideas are interesting. Maybe different techniques could be trial run to see how they affect the discourse.
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
CC: #[7]
Can watchers please vote on who is winning the debate?
...for a price... ;-)
From: crypt0cranium<-se... at 11/04 12:13
> Can watchers please vote on who is winning the debate?
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
CC: #[7]
We don't have an agreed central question of debate. I think I'm demonstrating NOT that Hamas supporters are right, but that Kisin does not understand the reasoning behind their positions and presumes they stem from various characterature straw man leftie positions. I'm trying to show you can come to the same positions without holding any of those leftie positions.
If we want to debate we need to start from a central question.
How about using your voice in the message?
Using async voice messages carry more info than pure text. You hear the other person and it’s also harder to be angry based on my experience with https://www.getairchat.com/ this year.
There could be some really cool ways to view the debate too - I once took a stab at building a tool to have a conversation with many forking side-tangents. The intent being to find all the places where core assumptions differed that gives rise to the overall opinion difference and work on the forks that seem promising.
From: mikedilger at 11/03 10:17
> You said the following things that I find to be extreme:
>
> All previous history is irrelevant.
>
> Events must not be justified.
>
> (Victims were) targeted for not just murder but torture of the most barbaric heinous and intensely personal kind (I think that is extreme with the facts)
>
> All their suffering is entirely Hama's fault
>
> I find all those views to be extreme.
Firstly, I appreciate you being worried about my "benefit". But don't worry. I'm a big boy.
It is perfectly valid to say that you believe some of my stated ideas to be extreme. I'll happily disagree; and we can debate those ideas.
It is not valid to say: "I hear only one side extremism from you." That is an ad hominem attack, and a false generalization that goes well beyond the ideas that I had stated.
Now, as to my assertion that the events of Oct 7th "must not be justified". What justification can there be for putting infants into ovens and roasting them alive? What justification can there be for descending on a dance concert with a squadron of ultra-light aircraft and spraying the dancers with automatic weapon fire? I could go on. You know the atrocities that were committed. I'm sure you've seen the videos taken by the perpetrators and heard the testimony of the survivors.
There can be no justification for such actions. No matter how oppressed, subjucated, and violated you have been; you cannot roast babies alive. And since such atrocities were not isolated, but were generally executed across the entire attack; and since the perpetrators filmed and posted their attacks to the cheers of many, and since they phoned home to brag about killing jews with their bare hands, it is clear that the atrocities were the point, and not just incidental.
In a moral society, we have to draw moral lines. Without those lines there is no morality. Such lines are not extreme; they are necessary to maintain the definition of morality. Therefore we must not attempt to justifiy actions that cross those lines. If we try, we will find ourselves erasing all moral lines and justifying the horrors of Auschwitz.
CC: #[4]
Thanks for standing up and stating it so clear: There can be no justification for such atrocities. Never ever! ❤
If you ignore all history your moral lines will shift markedly. Capital punishment appears as murder. A retaliation becomes an attack. In fact it is possible to view Hamas's attacks as slow motion retaliations that happened much later because it takes a very long time to prepare in their condition.
Some people have different moral rules. An eye for an eye combined with collective guilt (or just the belief that all adult Israelis serve in the IDF thus they are all guilty and legit targets) would insist that Palestine is owed tens of thousands of eyes from any Israeli they can get them from. This is NOT my view. I am highlighting a deep flaw in the very idea of being guided by morals outside of a population that shares the same morals.
Having said that, should I abandon sympathy for Palestinian children because their society runs on different moral codes,? Is it okay to treat them as animals and exterminate them because by following their moral guidelines they threaten my society?
I think not but I don't have the answers.
From: mikedilger at 11/03 18:59
> If you ignore all history your moral lines will shift markedly.
I don't think that's true. There are some moral absolutes.
>Capital punishment appears as murder.
No, it appears as killing, but not as murder. One can question the morality of capital punishment without calling it murder. The same is true of abortion.
>A retaliation becomes an attack. In fact it is possible to view Hamas's attacks as slow motion retaliations that happened much later because it takes a very long time to prepare in their condition.
Retaliations are provoked attacks. Whether they are moral depends on the conditions. If two parties agree to stop fighting, and then one suddenly "retaliates" then that party has crossed the moral line.
> Some people have different moral rules.
I don't fully agree. There are certain absolutes that some people rationalize away. Or, perhaps a better way to say this is that some people's morals are not valid because they cross the absolute moral lines. A sociopath, like Hitler, may consider themself to be moral; but their morality is not valid. Who defines the line of validity? We do. We organize our societies around those lines. When two societies disagree on those lines there is likely to be war.
> Having said that, should I abandon sympathy for Palestinian children because their society runs on different moral codes,?
No, because you (and I, and all moral people) have certain absolute morals the demand that sympathy.
> Is it okay to treat them as animals and exterminate them because by following their moral guidelines they threaten my society?
Animals? No, for the same reason. But that doesn't mean you won't fight them if they come for you and your family.
CC: #[4]
You missed my point, but also I now see that we are much further separated ideologically than I had thought. This issue is not between us, but we are just opining on it, Yet I get the sense to no benefit. So I wish you well and I will voice my opinions on this matter in a nostr community I setup after I do the prerequisite coding. Thanks for engaging with me and being civil.
I regret this post. I misunderstood the note it was in reply to. I don't think we are so far separated. I did not wish to fire off posts and refuse replies as some dabate tactic. I'm sad I have so few replies from the good Uncle now and fear I have made a mistake.
Fear not. You are a programmer and my brother. I spend an hour or so per day on nostr and then I do other work. So If I don't respond immediately it is often because I'm busy. I also took your last message to mean you wanted a pause. I tried to zap you in response but getalby was apparently down or something.
From: mikedilger at 11/04 20:11
> I regret this post. I misunderstood the note it was in reply to. I don't think we are so far separated. I did not wish to fire off posts and refuse replies as some dabate tactic. I'm sad I have so few replies from the good Uncle now and fear I have made a mistake.
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
Ok this point needs clarification. Twice now you've presumed any expression of weariness from me means that I want you to stop posting. Never have I meant that. I respect more speech, in more ways than one ;-). What I am signalling is that I may become less engaged. I am not asking for you to hold back your opinion, rather I'm letting you know that I may be holding back mine, that I may back away for a bit. But there are watchers who will see your reply, and they should hear it if you have something more to tell. When I mentioned that I get knots in my stomach, this is not in response to your posts, it is in response to my own posts.
OK. Understood.
From: mikedilger at 11/06 02:10
> Ok this point needs clarification. Twice now you've presumed any expression of weariness from me means that I want you to stop posting. Never have I meant that. I respect more speech, in more ways than one ;-). What I am signalling is that I may become less engaged. I am not asking for you to hold back your opinion, rather I'm letting you know that I may be holding back mine, that I may back away for a bit. But there are watchers who will see your reply, and they should hear it if you have something more to tell. When I mentioned that I get knots in my stomach, this is not in response to your posts, it is in response to my own posts.
CC: #[4]
In this note I am saying morality is stateful, not that it is relative. If I could murder and then wipe the state, I would get away with it.
