Wiki Contributions

Comments

banev1y10

Thanks. Agreed, different places works better for different topics and styles. 

I have checked and can acknowledge that a lot of downvotes are quite uncomfortable psychologically even if you are fully prepared to them and even without explicit harassment. 

That could be bad: 

1) to people who would like to write about some controversial topics which could be uncomfortable but finally helpful to the community (I'm not talking about myself here, but about more sensitive persons); 

2) to the community as a whole and to members of the community finally, as their views less likely to be challenged in current setup;

Interesting that this downvote problem probably will matter less for the prominent members of the community who already have a lot of karma and respect. This could lead to the situation when controversial topics become discussed only at the behest of the community leaders.

I could also point that recent changes at YouTube where you cannot see dislikes now, just their percentage, work really well. They encourage more involvement and do not hinder the incentive to write. 

P.S. This comment I cannot write because of the rate limit, so it will be posted later.

P.P.S. I decided to consider this not a bug, but a feature and I will answer max 1 comment per day in the following couple of months in any of my places. It should help in different ways: to choose only most valuable comments to engage with, to not spend too much time in useless discussions etc. Personal lengthy discussions could be done through DM if anyone needs them. 

banev1y10

Agreed on sequences example. 

For me the most valuable were e.g. that Seneca's letters, with which I initially disagreed completely, but after several days or weeks of reflection, came to the conclusion that he was right and I was wrong. 

banev1y10

Hey downvoters! Did you read the article at the link? What specifically you do not like? Leave comments with your opinion, don't be shy, I'm interested in your mode of thinking. 

banev1y10

About domain of type: I see the reality as infinitely complex system and causal links are as much a part of this system as objects and events and actors and laws of physics and other entities and phenomenons, named and separated from the background by human's attention.  The sky is one of these objects, it doesn't exist by itself in reality, except that in the imagination of people (as well as money, states, gods etc.), unlike living objects (subjects?) and phenomenons which do exist independently of our attention to them. While this concept of sky is useful - it is used. If people will not need it, it will disappear from existence. And for me the speaking of the truth of the some qualities of such concept is a not-correct way of looking at things. 

banev1y10

Agreed. "Sky is blue" is quite a good model of reality, useful for some purposes, but it's not the truth

The problem with the truth is that many most terrific wars in the history of humankind were ignited by different concept of the truth. 

And people who think they know the truth are the most intolerant as we can see here. 

banev1y0-1

My principles are not in disbelieving simple statements, but to see and articulate that these statements (especially not scientific ones) are not truth as many of people even here tend to believe. 

My position is: I know that I don't know a lot, much more than I know, and the more I live the bigger my knowledge and the bigger my ignorance. And I'm quite sure of my stance here. 

This position of me is not preventing you from having your own, different position, as we can see by your comments.

And you, at the other hand, just told me to stop pretending to be wise.  

Load More