Search Ideas

Doesn’t the ‘Search’ tab offer what you want? I could rename it to ‘Posts’. Maybe ‘Ideas’.

To keep things simple. This is just an MVP.

Create an EmbeddedDiscussion model, separate from Discussion.

Option 2: an embed code is shown on your profile, with a page-url attribute you fill in. That’s the page where you place the code.

Option 1: when you create a discussion, an embed code is shown, which you can paste anywhere.

Idea: embedded discussions on third-party websites.

So? How is that foundationalism?

Just because Dirk’s notion of justificationism breaks with BoI’s doesn’t mean Dirk is wrong. BoI could be wrong.

Dirk writes:

Foundationalism, or justificationism, is the idea that beliefs can be fully justified, proven true by some final authority beyond question.

I’m not sure foundationalism and justificationism are quite the same thing.

From BoI ch. 1 glossary:

[Justificationism is t]he misconception that knowledge can be genuine or reliable only if it is justified by some source or criterion.

Whereas foundationalism describes a prerequisite for knowledge to grow (properly). As in, needing a secure foundation or else the whole edifice falls apart.

I could see foundationalism being a flavor of justificationism, but not the same thing.

I have zero experience on the drug market, but I think it’s fair to assume that companies that want to get business by inhibiting people’s creativity rather than enhancing it don’t particularly care about consent.

I don’t expect honest advertising from such people. I expect trickery, not consent.

I agree, but this criticism chain is about predatory businesses limiting their customers’ creativity, not their own.

denies human creativity

No, they’re still creative, and they could overcome the addiction if they knew how, but their creativity is being severely limited.

According to Popper (ibid), opponents of world 3 “usually say that all these entities are, essentially, symbolic or linguistic expressions of subjective mental states”, that they’re merely, “means of communication…”

Rules for Participation

Veritula welcomes a wide range of discussion topics. Generally speaking, people have free speech here. Unpopular topics will not automatically get people banned. The goal of moderation is to preserve productive, truth-seeking discussion.

Behavior that is intended, or likely, to sabotage debate or prevent progress is a bannable offense. Such behavior includes, but is not limited to, harassment, brigading, rage baiting, public shaming, and persistent bad-faith argumentation or refusal to engage substantively.

Veritula takes intellectual property seriously and reserves the right to take down content that infringes on others’ intellectual property.

Veritula also reserves the right to take down obscene content such as pornography.

Serious instances of off-platform behavior that clearly would have violated these rules on-platform may result in removal.

Depending on the severity of an infraction, moderators may issue a warning, temporarily lock an account, or permanently ban the account.

Looking for loopholes in these rules, or abusing the letter to violate the spirit of these rules, is a bannable offense.

Moderation decisions are at the discretion of Veritula.

Users may appeal moderation decisions by contacting the moderators within a reasonable time after a decision. Appeals should explain why the decision was wrong. Appeals are reviewed at the moderators’ discretion. The same decision may be appealed only once.

Talks with moderators should remain respectful and constructive. Changes to these rules should be proposed before issues arise by criticizing this idea.

Rules for Participation

Veritula welcomes a wide range of discussion topics. Generally speaking, people have free speech here. Unpopular topics will not automatically get people banned. The goal of moderation is to preserve productive, truth-seeking discussion.

Behavior that is intended, or likely, to sabotage debate or prevent progress is a bannable offense. Such behavior includes, but is not limited to, harassment, brigading, rage baiting, public shaming, and persistent bad-faith argumentation or refusal to engage substantively.

Veritula takes intellectual property seriously and reserves the right to take down content that infringes on others’ intellectual property.

Veritula also reserves the right to take down obscene content such as pornography.

Serious instances of off-platform behavior that clearly would have violated these rules on-platform may result in removal.

Depending on the severity of an infraction, moderators may issue a warning, temporarily lock an account, or permanently ban the account.

Looking for loopholes in these rules, or abusing the letter to violate the spirit of these rules, is a bannable offense.

Moderation decisions are at the discretion of Veritula.

Users may appeal moderation decisions by contacting the moderators within a reasonable time after a decision. Appeals should explain why the decision was wrong. Appeals are reviewed at the moderators’ discretion. The same decision may be appealed only once.

Talks with moderators should remain respectful and constructive. Changes to these rules should be proposed before issues arise.

Drugs are currently illegal. Athough drug-related deaths have gone down recently, in the US, they were at an all-time high.

Drugs being illegal does not seem to deter drug use enough to warrant taking away drug users’ legal recourse, proper testing, and other such benefits of (legal) drug use.

Not all cases of wanting more of something are cases of addiction.

I want to buy a second chair because I enjoy the first one, not because I cannot help but buy another.

Getting customers addicted means making it so they cannot exercise their free will (or have serious trouble doing so). They’re effectively unable to criticize ‘buy another’ as a course of action.

Done.

Once this idea is implemented, the ‘Show activity’ button on bounties#show can link to the implementation.

Should comments be sorted by controversial/uncontroversial first, date second?

social_intell on IG says the way to distinguish between genuine interest and polite dismissal is specificity.

If someone says ‘keep me posted on that’ or ‘we should hang out sometime’, that’s vague; they’re politely ending the conversation. If you do follow up with them, you’re outing yourself as low value and socially incompetent.

If they really want you to follow up, or if they really want to hang out again, they’ll be specific: ‘let me introduce you to my colleague Peter, he can solve your problem, what’s your email?’, or ‘are you free next Wednesday at 7?’

social_intell on IG says the way to distinguish between genuine interest and polite dismissal is specificity.

If someone says ‘keep me posted on that’ or ‘we should hang out sometime’, that’s vague; they’re politely ending the conversation. If you do follow up with them, you’re outing yourself as low value and socially incompetent.

If they really want you to follow up, or if they really want to hang out again, they’ll be specific: ‘let me introduce you to my colleague Peter, he can solve your problem, what’s your email?’, or ‘are you free next Wednesday at 7?’

Composing a top-level idea on mobile is atrocious. Need to scroll all the way down to see the form, the form keeps hiding itself, etc.

Another idea: letting users post ideas to their own profile. Such ideas wouldn’t be part of a discussion.

But some of the criticisms basically say that the Persephone myth is “easy to vary”.