AlanOutback @AlanOutback@qoto.org

Sobsinepi@freeradical.zone

Apologies for pinging you (cold calling), but just wanted to say thanks for the thread of yours on tweeter.
I found it very validating, to see what an ethical person with practical expertise does when infected.

Makes me happy with my own life choices. :)

@Teri_Kanefield

Yes it is always drag when words like imminent mean what the speaker said, and not what I in some fantasy world would like it to mean.
But yes due process so stuff sticks takes work.

Gotta leave the appellate lawyers no leg to stand on. (sorry, but I am sure you will in this case agree)

Also when the appellate lawyer has no leg to stand on, that means they got it right the first time.

@dsacer

Yep

@dsacer

Gee who could have known that was part of the real cost of all that claimed to be cheap stuff?
Who knew?
Well apart from everyone, including those who profited from it then skipped out when the bills for damage were due.

@Teri_Kanefield
Here's question you don't get asked often enough. (as you deserve)

Have I told you lately that I love you?
MWAH. X X O X!

==============
Also while I am sure you will understand It seems I am also coming to Love Randall, but you are still my favorite constitutional scholar.
Definitely got he "Vibe" (see the castle)

@petergleick

I always found this video highly informative
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

admittedly it only really says fairly simple one thing over and over and over again
but as public policy still seems entirely ignorant of it

I have to wonder if it actually repeated and labored the point enough.

@voidabyss @freemo
As you are pro consent, and so am I, yet we reach opposite conclusions on the basis of that this seems like an ideal place to QOTO.

and given that Vaccines for COVID have been measured to reduce transmission.
(and note yes the original testing to grant the emergency use authorization did not test for that, it is subsequent research on large cohorts over longer periods that measured the effect on transmission)

but moving onto consent, as you are ... pro consent,

how can you plausibly at all be against mandatory vaccination for workers in aged care homes? That for me makes no sense at all.
Where is the consent by the elderly to be exposed to the unvaccinated?

Without the vaccine mandate, patients in the homes are neither informed about nor consent to the increased level of risk that unvaccinated health care workers pose to them.

For the purpose of keeping it simple I only wish to know about why you want that (aged care home) uninformed consent to happen. What gives those health care workers the right to enforce lack of good medical practice and care on the patients of the old folks homes?

But for reference: TBMK: There are similar removal of actual choice and unilateral imposition of risk without consent in all the other places in my country where mandatory vaccination is required in order to be allowed to put other people at risk by the risky behaviors of the unvaccinated.

@voidabyss @freemo

re this:
"Dr. Freemo if you reading up to this, I hope you consider the scientific research I shared here, and acknowledge the concerns that some people have regarding the mRNA vaccines."

Well as I have already for a really long time already considered that evidence and I am sure Dr Freemo has as well. Then your hopes are TBMK 100% likely to have been satisfied in advance.
Not only that but I and all the other people I have seen whoa re pro vaccine have all always acknowledge that at least some risk from vaccination exists.
I have also always been aware that some people have concerns, but the evidence I have almost universally found those concerns to be unjustified.
Do note there exist a very very small subset of people with history of allergic reactions to vaccines, and for that really small cohort of people with history real medical doctors advice is recommended by all.

It is the broader and unjustified by the data
(and yes i mean all the data including all the stuff you cited and the rest that you didn't, I am not ignoring any of the data.)
concerns that I have in the past and now again seek to alleviate.

@voidabyss @freemo
I am confused why you think anyone scientific ever said they thought it was 100% safe.

All the studies fright from the start indicated it risk were so much >lower< than the risks from catching Covid19 that the risk benefit of getting vaccinated was hugely in favor of getting vaccinated.

I note a total absence of evidence suggesting that is not so that has presented by you.
Actually i tell a lie, I say because I know the evidence for contradicting that doesn't from all the dozens of times i have checked claim much the same as yours in the past.

and note you do present evidence the risk is non zero,
and yes it is and always was known to be non zero,
and yes vaccine recommendations and mandates were all fully aware of that evidence and on a net benefit basis recommended and or mandated them.

On the topic of mandates, mandates in my country was on the basis of preserving people rights. At the time of mandates thepeopel mandated were mandated to be vaccinated so as to not needlessly and without consent put *other* people at unreasonable risk. No person was forced to have vaccine just required to have one if they wished to undertake activities that then added risk to other people from their decisions.
I have never seen any argument against mandates that in anyway at all attempted to acknowledge or justify why the refusers would have the right to put other people at risk without their knowledge or consent.

@Sheril
I go well past being suspicious of them. I have met way too many of them before.

The bizarre thing is that unless they are rabid deniers of the climate science, since it is well known and established that failing to reduce GHG emissions is much more expensive than reducing them.
That has been known reliably and robustly for ages.

So if they were really concerned about the economy and living in the real world, not some fantasy world. Then they'd want to reduce emissions,
even at substantial cost, (and its not)
but even if it was then the reduction in damage costs from the emissions avoided far outweighs the cost and is thus better for the economy.

Anyone who legitimately wants to claim otherwise rather than just meme about it has to go back and refute all those multiple independent lines of evidence.

and that's just nah. Not even the old timer sciency deniers do that, or ever did. They always did, and always have relied on selective interpretation of carefully curated data and rhetoric.

@slider7420

Thank you for reminding me of that show. I didn't get to see Hugh in it, but seeing Hugh's personal/deep connection to it lifts my spirit. Makes today a better day.

@garyackerman
Hey its is more 'fun' than that. (AKA even more cyclical)
Consider 3 educational institutions, it is entirely plausible (has been observed to occur)
That 'A' is using program 'a', B is using program 'b' and C is using program 'c'
all of these are >>accurately<< observed to be ... failing
They all swap to new 'better' programs...
A is now using program 'b', B is now using program 'c' and C is using program 'a'
and all are again >>accurately<< observed to now be much better than before.

Education is an interpersonal process (not bucket chemistry). How a new and exciting the program is (feels) for the humans implementing the program has substantial effect on how well the program works. And it might be tempting to want to "fix" that but the people implementing the programs are indeed people, and how enthusiastic they are, is TBMK the actual most important factor in how well the programs work.

If they continue to cycle through programs a,b,c for all eternity and it continues to produce "improvements" (followed by inevitable decay/boredom) then there isn't actually a problem with that.

@freemo
Also note while my initial statement above was in the public timeline. And I thought it belonged there.
It really has nothing to do with any proposal, it is me discussing the nature of the universe as I see it.
AKA me doing/living QOTO. (AKA if what I said is wrong smack me, I promise to enjoy learning from it.)

I also value the point (Someone else approx made) of preserving maximal degrees freedom for inter server argy bargy to resolve moderation. Moderation is going to get much harder, for some servers when the purposeful but clever not entirely good faith rules lawyers turn up (and start toeing lines in bad faith), and then bush lawyers any set rules we have against us. High functioning Stem severs may be up for that, I suspect the rest of the fediverse will enforce, Wheatons law, more by gut feels. I don't want any 'rules' in their way. The issue is the sign up list, and perhaps(?) secret block lists, so none know how much or little they signed up for.

I am also willing to participate in any closed forum, know how not to, drama drama.
but in all likelyhood will always have my own opinion. I rarely reach just the same conclusions on such topics as anyone else, but frequently decide there are no hills worth dying on.

@freemo

*The existing problem* that I see, was JoinMastodon unilaterally and non transparently turfing QOTO from its list despite QOTO at all times meeting its publicly stated requirements. On top of that, not having any receipts on how and why when questioned. Really is a violation of trust.
And that drastically effects new signup if JoinMastodon is represented as an authoritative list of where new people could go. When it is seemingly more just some guys friends list and is not actually done on its owns stated & advertised criteria.
There are all the public criteria for being on Join Matstadon then there are the double secret reasons
(some servers, in this case QOTO are excluded because :P<blows raspberry>. )

What is thus needed is a replacement for Joinmastodon, or an improvement in JoinMastodon.
One of the improvements might be that each server must tell us (potential new signups) what other servers on that list they block and why. other UI improvements is how to find server that suits the new user would also be possible.

===========================
As for mandating that servers don't block others. NOPE.
It is perfectly true that I have strong expectation that any @member@QOTO is likely basically immune to radicalization. (we've all met stupid a lot of times before, even stupid dressed up in academic clothes.) And given that QOTO so clearly says it doesn't block instances and has csv files to make it easy for individuals to make their own garden walled.
Then yes we, the members of QOTO are just fine with no blocks and we knew that coming in.

I don't agree that generalises to all servers and people. If someone wants to be on a server that clearly defines itself as a walled garden ... then that is not a second class server, its just one delivering things/features that I don't personally want or need. I do however respect that some people may well want or even need that.

I am even more than happy to make sure all new signups that want such a thing know where to find it.

@kacytillman
You're my Hero.

@MichaelEMann @ABC

My take aways:
There is nothing wrong with taking positive actions to reduce your personal carbon footprint. I do.
Those actions even saved me money and made me financially better off and improved my quality of life.
And while the merchants of doubt, will try to discount my positions on policy, by utterly ignoring the abusive consequences of burning Fossil fuels on others. Saying instead I ought to just go do what I want in private and leave them to burn all the FF they like, and simply ignore all the damage cost they are unfairly moving onto other people. Such positions are just more abusive behavior gaslighting and deserve to be described as what they are.

The place for further work (learning by me. hence YMMV.)(especially from a QOTO perspective), is the points made by Hornsey (13:00 - 17:40) are important as they identify how people make up their minds. Most importantly how some (hierarchical) people make up their minds via pathways utterly unlike mine. Understanding what reasoning will be required to convince them of the personal benefits(within their worldview) of actions on emissions

Then after that, discussing the different roles people can take, is important to remember. Not everyone can do everything, a man has to know his own limitations.

Making sure there are both problems and Agency in the discussion,
We need systemic changes, in how we say generate our energy and which things get what kinds of support via, either ignoring damage emissions make or directly funding the harm.

but we will *ALSO* need individual actions to adjust how we personally impact emissions, and also in how much social cachet is attached to doing the carbon foot print reducing things you do. So not only ride a bike, but make it look good.