Nostr Web Client

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.

Melvin Carvalho 2y ago

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!

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

unclebobmartin 2y ago

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]

Mike Dilger ☑️ 2y ago

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.

mark tyler 2y ago

Happens to me too sometimes 🫂

unclebobmartin 2y ago

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]

crany 👽🧡🗿 2y ago

Can watchers please vote on who is winning the debate?

unclebobmartin 2y ago

...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]

Mike Dilger ☑️ 2y ago

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.

petri 2y ago

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.

mark tyler 2y ago

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.