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]
There are lines that separate the grey from the black and white. Hamas crossed that line on 10-7.
There have been suggestions that the line was not truly crossed.
For example: Hamas' intent was to kill IDF soldiers in their sleep; and that IDF soldiers are a valid military target.
I reject this on a few grounds.
a) One does not preface a sneak attack on soldiers in their beds by launching a massive barrage of rockets all through their territory. Such a launch guarantees that the soldiers will be up and armed.
b) A sneak attack in the midst of a declared cease-fire invalidates the action.
c) The taking of hundreds of hostages must have been planned in advance and is inconsistent with the mission of killing soldiers in their sleep.
d) Filming the torture, rape, and execution of civilians, and posting those videos on-line is inconsistent with the mission of killing soldiers in their sleep.
e) Using ultra-light aircraft to attack a dance concert is inconsistent with the mission of killing soldiers in their sleep.
f) Going house to house in civilian neighborhoods and killing families in their safe rooms and bomb shelters is inconsistent with the mission of killing soldiers in their sleep.
Thus, the mission was never to kill soldiers in their sleep. The mission was terror.
From: (mark) at 11/03 16:48
>
> Anyway, I just realized that some people were acting as if there is an easily agreed to ethical line here for all cases which is never gray, but of course there is gray. That’s interesting to me.
CC: #[4]
To the extent that there are rules for warfare, those rules demand that civilians are never valid _targets_. Those same rules also demand that valid military targets are not made invalid by nearby civilians. The reasoning for that second demand is terrifyingly obvious. If civilians could be used to invalidate a target, then every warring faction _would use_ civilians to protect their most valued military assets.
As for the whether conscription is ethical, it is easy to understand that a society that cannot defend itself will not survive. Thus, the cost of citizenship is the possibility of conscription.
From: (mark) at 11/03 16:40
> One thought is that the answer is never - but then by the same logic it’s hard to say that rear lines military folk who for example were pressed into service are ever ethical targets either.
CC: #[4]
I'm sorry your blood pressure spikes. Perhaps your first choice was the right one, and you should avoid discussions like this. For my part, I enjoy the repartee' and exchange so I walk away happy; and I figure everyone else does too. If you don't, then taking care of yourself comes first. You have no duty to engage with me if it's harmful to your health and happiness. You and I are not going to solve the Isreal/Palistine issue here.
I leave it to you. I will not respond to your previous post on Hama's claims unless you'd like me to. But that's a one time offer.
If, in the future, you respond to one of my posts, you can be very sure that I will respond in kind.
From: mikedilger at 11/03 12:00
> Also I hate how arguing makes me feel. My blood pressure jacks up and I get knots in my stomach. I'm naturally an agreeable person not a disagreeable one who enjoys argument. But I argue anyways out of a sense of duty.
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
Ole Johan Dahl, and Kristin Nygaard were both Norwegian.
From: LifeLoveLiberty<-... at 11/03 15:56
> In what language are those names?
CC: #[4]
Heads down in writing the story of Nygaard and Dahl's creation of SIMULA. Man what a story. Full of politics and intrigue and even some corporate espionage. Whew!
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]
From: mikedilger at 11/03 10:29
> I'm sure we do disagree as to the facts if October 7. I reviewed hours of disgusting videos. I then listened to Hamas repr in Lebanon explain. His words were consistent with the videos. Israels were not. If you think the videos must then be biased, they were from Ben Shapiro.
CC: #[4]
I'm having trouble parsing your statement. I agree that the disgusting videos were consistent with some of the statements from Hamas. One in particular said that there will be many more Oct 7ths to come. I believe that is his intent, and the intent of Hamas. I heard one Hamas spokesman try to state that civilians were not targetted. That's patently absurd since so many civilians were killed in abhorent ways. That particular spokesman then walked away from the interview refusing to answer why so many individuals were tortured and killed.
I've also listened to the Isrealis, and their accounts are also consitent with the videos and the testimony.
So, with the exception of the one Hamas guy who claimed that civilians were not the target, I find both Hamas and Isreal to be in agreement about Oct 7th.
I'm not sure what Ben Shapiro has to do with anything, or why you thought you should bring him into this argument. I'll agree with you that he is not neutral in this situation; but then who could be?
Are you suggesting that the videos that you and I both saw, and the testimony that you and I both heard, were somehow faked? Is it your contention that Israel took a small event, and enlarged it as an excuse to declare war on Hamas?
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]
From: mikedilger at 11/03 09:52
> We disagree as to the facts. And as to perspective. I hear only one side extremism from you so I don't think discussion is a good idea.
I hope we do not disagree as to the facts of Oct 7th.
This is the second time you have made a public accusation against my character. Last week you accused me of supremacism, and now you are accusing me of extremism. I have made no accusations or intimations against you at all. I suggest that you adjust your debating stragegy. Ad hominem attacks are evidence that your argument is weak.
This is also the second time you have engaged with me, and then backed away. In for a penny, in for a pound, I say.
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
From: mikedilger at 11/03 09:44
> It is not that surprising that people will cheer when the little guy gets a punch in.
"The Little Guy" -> An army of organized terrorists funded by a vast array of anti-Israel forces from around the world who dominate the UN, academia, and the global media.
"A Punch" -> The carefully planned indiscriminate slaughter and barbaric torture of innocent woman, children, and families in their homes minding their own business.
You are right that it is not surprising to see the cheering. It is, however, disgusting, disturbing, and terrifying. They cheered when the towers fell too. And though they may not have cheered as the ovens fired, there was an awful lot of smug satisfaction.
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
From: mikedilger at 11/03 09:03
From my point of view OCT 7th makes all previous history irrelevant. There is no point to searching for the "justification" of that event because the event cannot _AND MUST NOT_ be justified. Innocent people were not "caught up" in that event. Innocent people were _targetted_ -- and not just targetted for murder; but targetted for torture of the most barbaric, heinous, and intensely personal kind.
The event was planned and executed with the same motivation, deliberation, and care as the Nazi's train schedules and ovens.
The suffering of the Palestinian people is now entirely due to the actions of Hamas; and it will end when Hamas unconditionally surrenders, or is destroyed. There is no other option.
CC: #[4]
nostr:npub19mun7qwdyjf7qs3456u8kyxncjn5u2n7klpu4utgy68k4aenzj6synjnft you look a lot like Tommy Emmanuel the guitarist. :)
From: nullgeektk<-Vishalxl at 11/03 06:32
> nostr:npub19mun7qwdyjf7qs3456u8kyxncjn5u2n7klpu4utgy68k4aenzj6synjnft you look a lot like Tommy Emmanuel the guitarist. :)
Ya think? OK, the wavy hair and wrinkled face. Sure. But other than that, the resemblance is pretty sparse.
Newton’s laws are quite an epiphany – even at its raw state, tech has constant or accelerated growth. The irony to this is that in order to have a form of political consensus, you’d like need a revolutionary leader like Peter the Great to bring about tremendous change, bearing in mind there is some form of authoritarianism – then again, when there is any leader of sort even in democracy, there is traces of authoritarianism. Or – the Napolean Bonaparte version – post pain – and a huge anarchist revolution. I’ve been thinking a lot about the latter, and that maybe Bitcoin and Nostr is going to be how everyone takes shelter, safe haven.
I did not know about the IBM punch card tech and the access usage by Nazi. I googled this up, Edwin Black has a book in this "IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation. “ (cc Uncle Bob who is doing a lot of historic computer growth reads nostr:npub19mun7qwdyjf7qs3456u8kyxncjn5u2n7klpu4utgy68k4aenzj6synjnft).
But I was fascinated with the fact that Hitler rose from extreme polarisation of democracy during the Weimar Republic times. That and a number of big companies supported Holocaust – Volks, Audi, Allianz, Porsche, Hugo Boss, Siemens, Shell, Deutshe Bank, Associated Press.
If you think about it, there was a time where a large group of people and capitalist industry that thought ethnic cleansing was ok.
Maybe history, like fashion, repeats – just like how the Jews taking shelter back in Russia today like they did about a hundred years ago. Would be interesting to see which way the branch leads – political consensus or aftermath of pain.
After all, physics is deeply rooted in psychology, sounds about apt getting on an enlightenment era version 2. Thanks for the great take.
From: pam<-DerekRoss at 11/02 23:27
> I did not know about the IBM punch card tech and the access usage by Nazi. I googled this up, Edwin Black has a book in this "IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation. “ (cc Uncle Bob who is doing a lot of historic computer growth reads).
>
Thomas Watson Sr. was quite a character. In his earlier years he worked for NCR, and engaged in a fair number of illegal commercial activities -- He was a white collar criminal who was eventually convicted of anti-trust felonies. This conviction did not impede his growth in the industry. Indeed, it likely accelerated it. Eventually he grew to be the CEO and Chairman of IBM. And, yes, he quite enthusiastiically sold equipment to the Nazis to help their trains run on time.
His son, Thomas Watson Jr. was eventually moved to apologize, on behalf of IBM, for that complicity.
CC: #[4]
This is a good bit of history.
Technically correct, but entirely missing the point.
From: (eky) at 10/31 14:09
> Semites are an ethnic group in a particular region of the world, and Judaism is a religion delivered to the Hebrew Semitic people, which does not make all Jews or people using the Semitic language of the Hebrews Semites! Changing definitions doesn't change reality. Arabs are also Semites, but not all Muslims are Semites. So telling an Arab he's anti-Semitic is a lack of intelligence, hypocrisy and a lie.
CC: #[4]