Search Ideas

Advocacy is not the same as telling people what to think.

Because decision-making is a special case of, ie follows the same logic as, truth-seeking, you can use such trees for decision-making, too.

This sentence is difficult to follow. Could it be made simpler or broken up?

Is there a reason the analogy follows from open vs closed societies, to open vs closed people? A society is not a person.

Maybe there could be some type of guide for a user’s ideas generally. It takes him through all of his controversial ideas and let’s him either counter-criticize pending criticisms or revise his ideas, one at a time. And maybe the user could also choose to ‘abandon’ a controversial idea, in which case the guide would not show the idea again (unless maybe there was some new activity on the idea?).

Implemented as of 39c2686.

Then people could occasionally check the search page for ideas they think they can rationally hold but actually can’t. And then they can work on addressing criticisms. A kind of ‘mental housekeeping’ to ensure they never accidentally accept problematic ideas as true.

Then people could occasionally check the search page for ideas they think they can rationally hold but actually can’t. And then they can work on addressing criticisms. A kind of ‘mental housekeeping’ to ensure they never accidentally accept problematic ideas as true.

Some people work in professions where sharing certain opinions puts them at risk of being fired.

Also, there are people living under repressive regimes.

Some reputational concerns are legitimate, and Veritula should accommodate them to promote free speech.

People could use Veritula to establish that intellectual presence and put their name (real or not) behind their ideas.

Would it be any harder than verifying someone’s name? It’s not like I check people’s ID.

There are ways. For example, they could use an established account to reach out.

That could be hard to verify.

What if someone uses a well-established pseudonym/online identity? That can still carry a lot of weight.

Another reason I want people to use their true names is that I want Veritula to be a place for serious intellectuals, not yet another social network where people just screw around. Part of being a serious intellectual is public advocacy of one’s ideas and public updates on changed positions.

When people use their true names, I expect higher quality contributions, less rudeness, fewer trolls, that kind of thing. More accountability generally means higher quality.

But that doesn’t address the part about public advocacy of one’s ideas and public updates on changed positions in the sense that you put your own name behind your ideas.

See #4071: if a trusted member vouches for them, I can infer they’re not here to screw around.

When a trusted member vouches for someone new, they’ll probably meet those expectations.

@dennis-hackethal Please share your reasoning for your request that Veritula users use their true names.

Those who advocate making most/all drugs illegal tend to think alcohol should remain legal, despite alcohol having many of the same problems as drugs.

Not prohibited by law.

The purpose of the law isn’t to minimise negatives and maximise positives. The purpose of the law is to uphold the rights of people.

The purpose of the law isn’t to minimise negatives and maximise positives. The purpose of the law is to uphold the rights of people.

Drugs are a net negative for society.

Legalising drugs will bring lawful competition to cartels and gangs, breaking geographical monopolies that perpetuate other (actual) criminal activity.