timorl @timorl@qoto.org

@FailForward
The only way I can think of is don't follow angry people, don't look at the timeline and the remaining angry responses to your posts should be possible to ignore/survive. If someone often posts angry responses to your posts, silence them.
@marathon

@pettter I think this is because it wouldn't actually solve most of the problems around this. The broken incentives for most parties in this situation are not inherently capitalistic – wanting to advance your career, wanting more resources assigned from the state – and it's hard to tell what the changes of incentives of publishers would be.

Although this would at least get rid of Elsevier, so not an insignificant win.
@ideasmithy@mastodon.social

@pganssle
It's not, but it would have been a good thing to try if it was.

@khird
The specific one did not have anything about blocks there. I think I'll have to mail the admins and ask, maybe I'm just wrong.

Is there a way of checking whether a specific instance is blocking the instance I am on? I have a strong suspicion one person I was trying to communicate with does not see my toots, but I don't know of a way of checking this.

@freemo
This is so ridiculously disconnected from reality I'm willing to make real money bets. Do you have any specific Nazi-like predictions for the Biden administration we can bet on?

Keep in mind I'm not particularly rich, so the money is mostly to make the losses feel more real, which should work even with relatively small amounts.

@awethon
What did they actually arrest him for?

@kmic
To, ale w odniesieniu do mojego zycia i nieironicznie.

I discovered why it is not subsidized by the government – it actually criticizes the government at some point. Definitely did not expect that.

@freemo And to express my thoughts a bit more clearly here too:

I wanted to write a very long post about general philosophy and sociology of law here, but I think it's a bit much for a toot (even with my love for creating walls of text). So the very short version is – we, as humanity, have worked very hard to figure out when escalations of violence (treated as a spectrum not a binary thing it this case; maybe aggression would be a better word? I hope you know what I mean) are a good thing to allow within a society. At this point it's relatively clear that in most cases it's much better to deescalate rather than escalate, but there are several relatively obvious exceptions. The clearest one is probably theft – it seems generally agreed upon that someone attempting to steal something can be stopped through violence, at least of the restraining kind. With pure proportional response, the only option would be to be allowed to steal something back, but a society in which such payback-stealing would be the only recourse for theft victims would not be a nice one to live in. And that's without even going into problems around the value of stolen items, and how it differs between the people involved.

Oh, and in most modern societies one of the roles of police is to handle all the cases where escalation was deemed appropriate, to prevent visious circles of escalation. Just a sidenote to avoid some confusion that might have appeared here.

To get closer to the problem at hand and clarify what my general positions on escalations in this case is, let me give an example. Say someone is trying to push through me while I'm standing in the door to my house. If that person is not stronger than me, I can just prevent them from entering by standing my ground, and this is the ideal situation – no escalation. If they are much weaker than me, I can even let them in to possibly deescalate and then figure out how to get them out later, possibly with use of some violence if necessary, but hopefully without much conflict at all. But if they are much stronger than me, then preventing them from entering becomes much more important – after they entered I (and additionally people present in my house) would be in an even worse position to do anything about that person. In such a case I would say escalating violence might be the correct course of action, depending on the difference in strength and the expected intentions of the pushing person – if I don't escalate now, the next time I could escalate I would not only be in a worse position, but also the person might already have done some damage. If that person already expressed anger at the people in my house, I would most likely feel justified in using violence to prevent them from entering. If they issued direct threats towards the people in my house the case is so clear cut it can probably be used to teach the art of jewelery making.

I would say the Capitol situation is pretty analogous at the very least to the anger case, up to the threat case, depending on what exactly they were chanting. The mob was big enough that it was stronger than the police, and so violent response was justified. It would _not_ have been justified if police presence was adequate, since this would have been analogous to the situation where I can just stand my ground, which is again why I am stressing why the investigation into _why_ the police presence was so low is so important.