Shashdot is a good example of a comment system where everything can be "visible" without making it very difficult to find the good comments among the bad ones.
You may not be able to convince the guy arguing with you. But if you have a good case, you might be able to convince the other people reading the comments.
"Obnoxious" comments are the easiest the deal with unless the comment system is poorly designed -- you just ignore them.
Given an equal say, how hard is it to make the case against those things? If you try to censor people, they just get louder and less thoughtful and less articulate. Let them make their best argument. Refute it if you have the facts on your side.
If you're trying to shut people up, that's a clear sign that your ideas are unpersuasive.
When they see a news story about ISIS executing a journalist they should ignore it, because it isn't about them?
Versus doing what? What action should the average person take to be safe from being beheaded by ISIS? How much effort should the average person spend protecting himself from ISIS each day?
What did you do to protect yourself from ISIS today? All of us morons who just went about our lives like normal need you to tell us where we all went wrong.
Exactly. If you're worried about this, you're making the obvious mental error in thinking that stories you see on the news are about you. They aren't. Even if the news stories are true (and not misleading, or out-of-context, or dramatized, or hyped out of proportion), they're still almost never stories about you.
You don't need to take any action. You don't need to disrupt your life. You don't need ask your government to bully other people into solving this "problem" for you. It's not about you. It really isn't.
Can I decide to read it? Without free will, it seems like the reading will happen or not regardless of your advice or my intent to read it or not to. I guess we'll see what happens.
OK about the government. But telling a person he is a victim of his food isn't what he needs to hear to improve his life. "Appetite" is not destiny. You decide to eat or not, you decide what, and you decide how much.
Wanting to sell the drug you developed is "mindless greed" now? I guess a worker who wants to get paid at the end of the work week is also exhibiting "mindless greed" then.
Why can't it be a series of very sad mistakes or oversights? Why is there a need to spin an unsubstantiated tale of villainy?
Shouldn't we want government regulation based on truthful, objective analysis rather than over-dramatized horror stories? (It's already fucking thalidomide. Isn't that dramatic enough without "teh eeevil corporate monster" narrative? Meanwhile doctors who gave it to patients: not mindless or greedy. Because...?). Can't we add regulations when they make sense and work and make our lives better, and remove or reform regulations when they burden people for no benefit or when the benefits are greatly outweighed by the costs?
Let's have government that's not based on made up stories, or hyped-up stories, or dramatized stories. Let's base it on facts and objective analysis that weighs costs against benefits.
Music by specific artists is a unique product -- another artist generally can't reproduce the same music in exactly the same way.
Insurance is the opposite. All auto insurance is essentially the same -- the differences have very little value. If one insurance company fails to update it's business model, 5 more insurance companies will swoop in and take the business.
An article with this level of simple insight would never get published on Slashdot.
You need to add a conspiracy:
Diesel is only available because... big oil pushes diesel and bribes politicians to keep it available. Refining oil into gasoline without also producing diesel creates a byproduct with infinite energy per liter. If they stopped making diesel fuel, the oil companies would all go out of business.
Slashdot Mirror
They are right to complain. Moderating comments down because you disagree with them is an abuse of the moderation system.
It's still a reasonably good system, despite the abuses and complaints.
Shashdot is a good example of a comment system where everything can be "visible" without making it very difficult to find the good comments among the bad ones.
...wade through heaps and heaps of idiotic comments...
That's a poorly designed comment system you're describing.
You may not be able to convince the guy arguing with you. But if you have a good case, you might be able to convince the other people reading the comments.
"Obnoxious" comments are the easiest the deal with unless the comment system is poorly designed -- you just ignore them.
Given an equal say, how hard is it to make the case against those things? If you try to censor people, they just get louder and less thoughtful and less articulate. Let them make their best argument. Refute it if you have the facts on your side.
If you're trying to shut people up, that's a clear sign that your ideas are unpersuasive.
"unquestioning" support is "pro-science"?
I'd contend that there's no such thing as a "pro-science bias". You can either be pro-science or biased, but not both at once.
Everyone is going to miss those valuable insights.
In other words "we can't design a good comment system, and we can't find a good comment system to buy, so we give up".
This is a great example:
When they see a news story about ISIS executing a journalist they should ignore it, because it isn't about them?
Versus doing what? What action should the average person take to be safe from being beheaded by ISIS? How much effort should the average person spend protecting himself from ISIS each day?
What did you do to protect yourself from ISIS today? All of us morons who just went about our lives like normal need you to tell us where we all went wrong.
Exactly. If you're worried about this, you're making the obvious mental error in thinking that stories you see on the news are about you. They aren't. Even if the news stories are true (and not misleading, or out-of-context, or dramatized, or hyped out of proportion), they're still almost never stories about you.
You don't need to take any action. You don't need to disrupt your life. You don't need ask your government to bully other people into solving this "problem" for you. It's not about you. It really isn't.
Can I decide to read it? Without free will, it seems like the reading will happen or not regardless of your advice or my intent to read it or not to. I guess we'll see what happens.
So? Lynch mobs and witch hunts are immune to ideas that are merely "obvious".
It has the same regulations as any other drink. The ingredients and nutritional info are printed on the package in a standard format.
OK about the government. But telling a person he is a victim of his food isn't what he needs to hear to improve his life. "Appetite" is not destiny. You decide to eat or not, you decide what, and you decide how much.
Because you don't eat, you "end up" eating. No choice. You are a victim of your food, and you need a government mommy to choose your diet for you.
You're guest is as good ass mime.
Wanting to sell the drug you developed is "mindless greed" now? I guess a worker who wants to get paid at the end of the work week is also exhibiting "mindless greed" then.
Why can't it be a series of very sad mistakes or oversights? Why is there a need to spin an unsubstantiated tale of villainy?
Shouldn't we want government regulation based on truthful, objective analysis rather than over-dramatized horror stories? (It's already fucking thalidomide. Isn't that dramatic enough without "teh eeevil corporate monster" narrative? Meanwhile doctors who gave it to patients: not mindless or greedy. Because ...?). Can't we add regulations when they make sense and work and make our lives better, and remove or reform regulations when they burden people for no benefit or when the benefits are greatly outweighed by the costs?
Let's have government that's not based on made up stories, or hyped-up stories, or dramatized stories. Let's base it on facts and objective analysis that weighs costs against benefits.
Main difference: realtime first person video downlink
Obviously a wise policy because it's clearly working great.
Music by specific artists is a unique product -- another artist generally can't reproduce the same music in exactly the same way.
Insurance is the opposite. All auto insurance is essentially the same -- the differences have very little value. If one insurance company fails to update it's business model, 5 more insurance companies will swoop in and take the business.
But -40C feels colder than -40F
No. Earnest? Maybe. Serious? No.
An article with this level of simple insight would never get published on Slashdot.
You need to add a conspiracy:
Diesel is only available because ... big oil pushes diesel and bribes politicians to keep it available. Refining oil into gasoline without also producing diesel creates a byproduct with infinite energy per liter. If they stopped making diesel fuel, the oil companies would all go out of business.
Also a problem for cycling: snow. (Yes, I know it's possible to ride a bicycle in the snow -- but it is objectively unwise.)
It's Nintendo. Post your friend code in the comment section below and they'll send you a link in the mail.