Even if you often try to make that person feel understood and empowered to express their views, everyone’s needs are different. For example, if they tend to feel inadequate or are self-conscious about their achievements/intelligence/etc., you may need to go the extra mile here.

Try to identify all the positive and negative interactions with them (i.e., those in which they get the impression that they are right versus those in which they don’t) and make sure that positive ones greatly outnumber negative ones. If you need, you can try to acknowledge more situations wherein their contribution to a conversation deserves praise, or even simply not point out their mistakes if the question at hand is not critical for you (easiest imo).

When a person says this, sometimes even if they do it in a positive tone, it’s usually a way to verbalize more concrete concerns that you should address. For example, they might feel that you are always dismissing their opinions, that you don’t listen to them in general, or they would simply like to get support when they express their views in a group so they get some recognition. In any case, they feel like you can do something to help but may not feel comfortable to express it or may not have fully identified it. If that person is important to you, you should be able to see what they want and take action.

Brilliant. That makes a lot of sense, especially the more concrete the goals are. I wish it were easier to achieve, maybe the theoretical frameworks for this will be a reality in a few decades… Your implementation at least seems more plausible.

Okay, my answer is pretty removed, but I’d say I’d like a system where decisions are made by submitting automated proofs of their optimality, either absolute or over all submitted proposals in a defined time frame. The conditions of optimality would be pre-defined in a Constitution, and non-provable facts would be accepted or rejected via a decentralized voting system that would keep multiple diff chains and penalize e.g. voting for facts that are later proven false via a submitted proof. The proof system would hold all powers, but would be able to delegate decisions to entities under proven rules, which would come faster but possibly be overriden.

If you use my snippet, I want your game. If you don’t agree, then you can’t use my snippet. The purpose of the GPL is simply to prevent people who don’t share from benefitting from people who do, which I think is pretty fair.

Absolutely. But I don’t want to influence anything, just make the OP slightly happier and hopefully have a good read myself.

The reason some desires are universal is that they are achievable, thus it makes sense that an entity that looks for them exists. And we don’t yearn for God, we yearn for happiness, empathy and staying alive, and some of us have created a conceptual entity that gives us an infinite supply of those.

I tend to upvote everything, no matter how much I disagree. I don’t trust my own opinions or the authors’, all of them are flawed in some way.

Haha no worries, it’s nice to get some tips, thanks! :D

Good idea, should’ve done it haha. I no longer remember what website it was, but I’ve seen the same dialog appear a few times since.

I’m a Marxist-Leninist, member of an organized group.

I believe countries try to shape and weaponize citizens’ opinions about other countries, so I refuse to defend or criticize them unless I can argue that doing so is beneficial to my ideas (i.e., not based on feelings or ethics). Thus, I’m neutral towards most countries and defend multipolarity.

I tend to doubt my ideas as much as I can.

Do you expect this is a reflection of how Reddit will handle relations with its investors?

Holy shit, they killed him right there. They have put the thread in “sort by new” mode and I bet it’s just to bury that bomb as deep as they can.

You can accuse anyone of anything and start a trial, that’s how the justice system works.

Yeah, although I’ve realized I enjoy the meal more if I don’t.