What up Dune!
What makes Nostr feel authentic? Each timezone brings its own personality to the feed. Log in at different hours and you’re not just seeing different people, you’re experiencing different worlds, different conversations, different rhythms. That geographical diversity, unfiltered by algorithms, is what makes this place real.
The reason…the main reason we celebrate Christmas is that the Savior of the world was sent and born into this world to reconcile us back to God.
How will it play out?
The best thing on Nostr is that nobody is bought and paid for!
Just because you mentioned it, yes 😂
These are great points Micha. Christ is our example and endured literally All our shame
Need some headbanging hype #Music #MusicStr #V4V
I GOT YOU!
https://wavlake.com/track/bd50fb7f-bcb9-40d1-b40d-3192d1850256
Is this accurate?
A man can endure a lot of things, but being disrespected is not one of them.
Why?
Because respect is the foundation of his social existence. A man can survive poverty, physical pain, even betrayal, but disrespect attacks his fundamental sense of worth and status in the social hierarchy. It’s not about ego. It’s about the implicit message that disrespect sends: “You don’t matter. Your boundaries mean nothing. You can be violated without consequence.”
No functional society, relationship, or self can be built on that foundation. Tolerating disrespect doesn’t make you stronger or more enlightened. It makes you a doormat. And nature has no use for doormats.
Part of the adventure is discomfort.
Distribution > Validation.
The question isn’t what you enjoy. It’s what you’re willing to put your name on.
The Case for Fighting Fair (When No One Else Will)
Charitable warfare is the practice of interpreting your opponent’s position in its strongest, most coherent form before engaging with it. Essentially steelmanning rather than strawmanning in ideological conflict.
The principle demands we ask what the most thoughtful proponent of this view would argue, rather than seeking out the dumbest version we can attack.
Why it’s absent:
Our information ecosystem rewards the opposite. Algorithms amplify outrage. Quote tweets showcase dunks on the weakest arguments. We’re incentivized to find the most extreme, least defensible version of opposing views because it generates engagement and makes our side feel superior.
Implementation requires three commitments
First is epistemic humility. We must acknowledge that intelligent, moral people can reach different conclusions from the same evidence.
Second is asymmetric interpretation. We should be more charitable to others’ arguments than our own, since we naturally favor our positions.
Third is public modeling. We need to visibly engage with the strongest counterarguments, even when easier targets exist.
When to implement it:
Always, but especially when stakes are highest. The more consequential the disagreement about governance, rights, or resource allocation, the more critical that we engage with actual positions rather than caricatures.
The irony is that charitable warfare proves more effective for persuasion than its alternative. People change their minds when they feel understood, not when they feel mocked.
We’re not losing arguments. We’re losing the capacity to have them.
Spread this note like wildfire 🔥