AlanOutback @AlanOutback@qoto.org

@Paulos_the_fog
What free speech ... isn't free?
Some is more free than others

Colour me shocked.

@DoctorRinny
Being multihomed isn't a problem.
You could even follow yourself to help you remember where the one you have but dont use so much is.

I am multihomed, as I wanted to have two local different timelines.

@freemo
My bottom line: Your server your rules => thumbs up from here.
That I liked the rule and goals, is why I chose this server.

"While we allow questions and conversation regarding these topics in general, doing so in bad faith will result in immediate expulsion."

In another (less charged) context:
Kathryn Hayhoe, has useful scale of people she suggests people need to talk to.
There are some percentage of them (dismissives) that in the end we wont need to persuade in order to achieve powerful strong action on climate change.
As small qualified counterpoint:
(I can make the case to, (at times, to some extent,) engage with even the dismissives, so as to demonstrate to the others what the dismissives really are, but 'legitimising' the concern 'OMG it gets dark at night' and its 'the sun stupid'. Giving that oxygen can backfire.)
I also commend to you, the idea of conceptually validating the rules, in contexts like the above.

Translating to the QOTO context:
I don't see QOTO as being literally QOTO. But more accurately,
QOTO about STEM (or the things that interest STEM people).

Hence while unlike Kathryn QOTO doesn't have a clear direction called progress. Promoting good faith discussion, stopping bad faith actors burning it down, is less tangible but is the objective.
For me: if someone really has negative value to learning of themselves and others... then they made mistake and don't belong on QOTO.

anything, _you_ are ever going to agree to 'expel', wont be interesting to me. Even in a scatological sense.
I wont as a result be missing anyone I get value from talking to or reading.

and noting I have indeed talked to Flat earthers, and the thing I was trying to teach myself, is just what sort of mind and internal belief and analysis system can genuinely believe that. Or is it always, like the 'Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide' group I was a very early member of.

But yes discussing "banning di hydrogen monoxide", while seemingly failing "has negative value to learning of themselves and others..." is on the level of "a cautionary tale" funny. But if there was enough of it, it would also be a problem

Hence I like, not so much rules, as people making decisions about what benefits QOTO. And in the end all conduct prejudicial to the good order and discipline of QOTO can go. And yes for good people to make good decisions, having guidleines is beneficial, as is discussion of them (hence this post)

ta. && Pls Look after yourself. They (the dismissives), are not worth your BP.

@Teri_Kanefield
It might be you cant work out how to view it?
Do note perhaps I don't either, Im new too, but IT not law is the background.
However usign the whalebird client when I view detail of your /1 post I get the /2/3/4 post as a "thread" like thing.
The 'user experience' when viewing using a web client is different to some apps.
After I post this I also expect to be able to find my own reply in the view detail view.

@petergleick @MichaelEMann

It would inform me what kind of actions I would need to perform if what I sought was the publics approval.
It doesn't tell me lot about what actually changes the publics mind, but instead just about what the public believes changes it mind. Social science research is indeed bloody hard, way slipperier mere climate science.
Let me be specific/exemplary, I used to teach math. Numbers of students reported to me that the things I had just said and the questions I just asked were a pointless. (At least as pointless as XR actions)
So I created a new process. When I started talking I verified can you do problem X? Answer was no. When I had finished, if I got negative reported value from the questions I had been asking, I checked: "That problem X that you could not do at the start can you do it now... ?" Answer was yes, so no their self evaluated value and effect of my actions/questions was just wrong. I have no doubt near every person whose opinion most needs to be (would be improved by) challenged by XR is of the opinion XR didn't persuade them of anything. Hell, if their opinion ever changes, they also likely wont accurately know what they learned from where by who. People rarely think "I used to be a doofus but X showed me the way." Given the morally challenging results of many peoples views on AGCC, no way they will ever admit to themselves, the long haired freaky people who protested Vietnam, or XR of today had it right.
Long story short: Humans self evaluation of how their own cognition develops over time and what caused it ... is in my direct observation, awful.
Worse: I have plenty of 'conversations' with people, where I have zero XR like behaviors and I think I make some progress. (I am pretty sure they disagree that they changed their minds at all, let alone that I caused it)
But (if my perception is accurate) sounds like evidence my non XR like progress is good. BUT I am not at all sure, that Id always be making the same ground if XR had not first furrowed the paddock and made their even be an issue for me to resolve.
I am reminded of the old saying, it takes village to raise a child. Having spent decades interacting with people in denial of varying depths (on various issues) and attempting to move their education dial on the issues, I have not yet seen any evidence any approach is wrong per se. And given the depressing lack of progress overall on AGCC, when what to do has been obvious for so long. I am pretty sure the slowness is due to the 'enemy actions', not any mistakes being made by the good guys.
If non XR like endeavors were the answer, we have decades of that 'not working'

Walking into traps(gotchas, bait and switch, misframing the question (EG VRE must be cheaper than a mythical doesn't exist alternative.) , and limitations of humans due to their tribal nature being exploited against them is where I see the issues and problems lie.
My 2C. It takes a village.

@corvina
That was exactly the kind of surprising science I came here hoping to learn.
Note we the way internally pronounce some words without the y such a dude Putin honoring their short time here. Weird.
For me:
That says stuff about who we are (as species) that until pointed out our brains just gloss over all that. Makes for me a start at understanding how (twit/people) hold such cognitive dissonances without exploding. If the dissonance crawls into the back of my/their head where the pronunciation stuff lives, I/They just won't see it, either.