2 ms·

I could add so much more to this about the state of affairs which claims the problems in the present era were seeded almost 300 years ago and that the supposed

I could add so much more to this about the state of affairs which claims the problems in the present era were seeded almost 300 years ago and that the supposed freedoms of today enshrined in that hour were not, as it were, a byproduct of the age of enlightenment, but rather, an insideous plot concocted by masonic and conventionally minded globalists planning a society that would protect the issues they cared about and protecting their assets against outside exploitation. I could say that america needs to die, and in truth, although most of it will survive, it will go through a rebirth, and become a new thing, not like the phoenix, but rather like the butterfly, which shares many pieces of the old but is a design of the new.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ohgreatwtf 6y ago
Really we need a forum like ycombinator news but instead it's just peoples ideas and thoughts and you get to upvote or downvote comments but it's not so simple as a direct vote, it needs to be engineered in such a way that the age old adages of "Few consider the logic of another to be as sensible as their own." and "To the dim-minded, the sunlight must seem absurd" - in order to promote original and counter-social norms discussion and content. For it, an innovative voting system would probably be useful. Forums that have tried to promote anti-conventional ideas have failed before. Usually grossly disgusting things make their way to the top of the feed in such cases, and good, original thoughts, meander in that twilight zone between good and bad, or get mildly downvoted, but only enough to be pushed below the threshhold- not enough that the negative point association is itself an expression of dislike for the content. Essentially, people do not so much hate original ideas, as simply dislike hearing them. What makes this tricky is that people will always think their opinions sensible. For example, lets say you post a not so popular but sensible opinion. If you instituted a mechanism for people to vote on your content on the basis of logic, or reason, or any other qualitative mechanism, they would downvote it on the basis of logic, reason, etc. Instead, we must attack the fundamental cybernetic arrangement of authority over opinion. First, we have an up thumb and a down thumb: I feel that the content presented is good, and i believe it self-sufficiently so/ It makes me feel uncomfortable, and I believe the evidence is self-sufficient. Secondly, we have an up arrow and a down arrow: I understand what the person is trying to say/ I don't understand their reasoning. Casting a vote would require selecting both an arrow and a thumb. Getting a down thumb and a down arrow results in getting one point for originality. Getting a up thumb and an up arrow results in getting a point for popularity. Getting a down thumb and an up arrow results in getting a point for controversiality. Getting a up thumb and a down arrow results in the post getting a point for absurdity. The score of the post is determined as follows: The ratio of originality to controversiality is used to assign a value up to 100. a 1:0 ratio is a score of 100, and a 0:1 score is a value of 0. This shall be known as the shittest variable, or SV. The ratio of popularity to controversiality is used to assign a value up to 100. A 1:0 value is a score of 0, 0:1 score 10, and a 1:1 score is a value of 100. This shall be known as the shiteating variable, or SE. The ratio of originality to absurdity is used to assign a value up to 100. A 1:0 value is a score of 10, 0:1 score 0, and a 1:1 score is a value of 1. This shall be known as the shittake variable, or ST. The ratio of popularity to absurdity is used to assign a value up to 100. A 1:0 and a 0:1 is a score of 0. A 1:1 is a score of 10. This shall be known as the shit-brigading variable, or SB. SV x SE x ST X SB determines the true value of the post. However, a user can choose to set a variable in their user profile which shows all posts based on popularity alone, and all scores based on popularity alone. However, if the true value exceeds popularity by more than a factor of 10, the post will be hidden from their view, and the same would go for any replies.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ohgreatwtf 6y ago

Really we need a forum like ycombinator news but instead it's just peoples ideas and thoughts and you get to upvote or downvote comments but it's not so simple as a direct vote, it needs to be engineered in such a way that the age old adages of "Few consider the logic of another to be as sensible as their own." and "To the dim-minded, the sunlight must seem absurd" - in order to promote original and counter-social norms discussion and content. For it, an innovative voting system would probably be useful. Forums that have tried to promote anti-conventional ideas have failed before. Usually grossly disgusting things make their way to the top of the feed in such cases, and good, original thoughts, meander in that twilight zone between good and bad, or get mildly downvoted, but only enough to be pushed below the threshhold- not enough that the negative point association is itself an expression of dislike for the content. Essentially, people do not so much hate original ideas, as simply dislike hearing them. What makes this tricky is that people will always think their opinions sensible. For example, lets say you post a not so popular but sensible opinion. If you instituted a mechanism for people to vote on your content on the basis of logic, or reason, or any other qualitative mechanism, they would downvote it on the basis of logic, reason, etc. Instead, we must attack the fundamental cybernetic arrangement of authority over opinion. First, we have an up thumb and a down thumb: I feel that the content presented is good, and i believe it self-sufficiently so/ It makes me feel uncomfortable, and I believe the evidence is self-sufficient. Secondly, we have an up arrow and a down arrow: I understand what the person is trying to say/ I don't understand their reasoning. Casting a vote would require selecting both an arrow and a thumb. Getting a down thumb and a down arrow results in getting one point for originality. Getting a up thumb and an up arrow results in getting a point for popularity. Getting a down thumb and an up arrow results in getting a point for controversiality. Getting a up thumb and a down arrow results in the post getting a point for absurdity. The score of the post is determined as follows: The ratio of originality to controversiality is used to assign a value up to 100. a 1:0 ratio is a score of 100, and a 0:1 score is a value of 0. This shall be known as the shittest variable, or SV. The ratio of popularity to controversiality is used to assign a value up to 100. A 1:0 value is a score of 0, 0:1 score 10, and a 1:1 score is a value of 100. This shall be known as the shiteating variable, or SE. The ratio of originality to absurdity is used to assign a value up to 100. A 1:0 value is a score of 10, 0:1 score 0, and a 1:1 score is a value of 1. This shall be known as the shittake variable, or ST. The ratio of popularity to absurdity is used to assign a value up to 100. A 1:0 and a 0:1 is a score of 0. A 1:1 is a score of 10. This shall be known as the shit-brigading variable, or SB. SV x SE x ST X SB determines the true value of the post. However, a user can choose to set a variable in their user profile which shows all posts based on popularity alone, and all scores based on popularity alone. However, if the true value exceeds popularity by more than a factor of 10, the post will be hidden from their view, and the same would go for any replies.