#23

I’m against banning anybody including @Bicep. It’s easy to ignore somebody whose posts you don’t like. Why to go to such extreme as banning/policing ppl? Diversity in opinions matters.

19 Likes
#25

I agree with the part about too many new posts to read all now and lower avg quality as # increases. Maybe we need a better weekly summary system powered by ai? Or how many people favorite posts?

Personally i want to see the weeks most liked content with ai generated context summary for the before and after.

1 Like
#26

The vaccines-cause-autism people ARE totally stupid. The even more stupid few might be those who think banning speech makes the thoughts behind that speech go away. It only intensifies them and gives fodder to the conspiracy minded. If someone posts stupid shit, let whoever deems himself wiser either ignore it as beneath contempt, or provide better information from more credible sources. If someone gets tired of providing said information, that’s in no way a valid reason for suppressing the dumber person’s speech. Yes it can be exasperating, but it’s like clipping one’s fingernails. There’s no end to it, needs to be done on the regular. And if one can’t take it anymore, there’s always option #1 to fall back on — namely ignoring that shit and not giving it extra oxygen.

I’m not sure what’s more toxic to threads here or conversations in general — the occasional ignorant posts or info being peddled that’s clearly bogus, or the rabid zealotry of would be gatekeepers of THE Truth, with a capital T, who persecute with a Puritan fervor as a heretic any slight deviator from their dogmas. I know bullshit when I see it and plenty of people even here, subscribe to some fringe shit. But on the other hand it’s an absolute certainty that some parts of accepted mainstream biomedical dogmas must be wrong. We just don’t know which, and won’t know until some heretic goes out on a limb to prove it and pulls it off. When you ban heresies, you don’t know what truths to be discovered in the future you’re suppressing along with the claptrap.

True science is not dogmatic but only advances through open inquiries. And those require open conversations.

My two cents. I have spoken.

5 Likes
#27

On the topic of your good point….

I realize I don’t have much to offer here in the way of contributing to the discussion of science.

Most of my posts might be asking questions that are not really helpful to anyone else. Because of this, I often wish there was a way to delete it after someone has answered me with the goal of minimizing the noise others have to sift through. I often delete before posting a question for that very reason.

I don’t know of a good way to add the delete function that doesn’t make a mess of things, but I’ll throw this out there incase someone else does.

2 Likes
#28

There’s a ton of repetitive conversations and the same points getting rehashed over and over again. Some of it is because people forget or because they missed the original thread or — my least favorite and the only one I sort of resent — they don’t have anything better to do and like to boil the ocean just because.

I think one of those chatbots that digests a website’s information and to whom a user can ask any question and it will answer it based on the content of the site, would be super helpful. It’s hard sometimes to look for something specific just by using the search function and my bookmarks are overflowing.

2 Likes
#29

Back in 1999 I started a tech oriented chat forum. It was a somewhat arcane tech but it was interesting to quite a few people. Within a year I had over 20k members. It was too much for 1 person to manage. I had been observing several very helpful members and I approached them about becoming moderators.

We kept it between the ditches with organized sections and built a FAQ section for repetitive Q&A type things.

By 2002 we had over 200k members and we added a few more moderators with a similar approach, observe the knowledgeable, helpful and considerate members and asked them if they would be moderators. Eventually 13 moderators to manage over 200k members with an average of 2k on at any given time and peaks of over 5k users at one time. I had my own colocated servers to host this setup.

We did run a tight ship as we experienced a lot of mis-information, trolls and outright trouble makers. Every moderator had the ability to restrict and/or ban. They had all been selected by the “inner circle” and were trusted to do the right thing for the right reasons.

We grew to this size because we had a no BS reputation and people trusted the process to get the best information available in a supportive environment like we experience here. This is one of if not the best forum on a technical topic I’ve ever experienced. All credit to the sharing nature of the people attracted to learning here.

Some people enjoy combat, most don’t and that separated us from other small forums in the same space that tolerated “free speech” and the chaos that can bring to a highly technical site.

This is RapAdmin’s creation and is technically a private enterprise where the concept of free speech is in reality, optional.

6 Likes
#30

Dear admin, I see you posting this food pyramid of research again, so here a comment I wanted to give for a long time:
meta and reviews at the top would be correct if science, and by now basically all relevant fields, anything to do with meds, bio, etc. for sure, would not be so deeply corrupted. If the whole base is totally biased, the review article writers invested, like in the case of statin side effects or vaccines distorting and cherry picking, basically all belong to the self selected incrowd, whistle blowers do not get past editors, what do you think a meta study will improve on it???

1 Like
#32

if you had ever shown critical thinking here already, but basically just joined and starting suppression of whistle blowers,…

#33

If your point is that we can’t trust studies anymore, there is no point to doing anything to improve your health or lifespan.

3 Likes
#34

Yes, that is why vaccines should also get them, double blind and all

#35

This is a longevity/science board, and the issue of Vaxx shouldn’t be politicized either way. Demanding folks see vaccines as 100% clean/healthy without scientific backing to the affect and censoring discussion otherwise is as aggressive as you think someone is trolling with making stuff up about vaccines.

Ive never, and will never take the covid vaccine until there is 100% solid backing as to me its just an unknown entity entering my body. Though I purposely had no problem with the yellow fever vaccine after studying its supposed anti cancer affects

Agressive moderation of thinking is as negative and intolerant as the thinking in a lot of cases

Vaccines are at issue in possibly affecting health and I’m open to critical discussion on how they do

2 Likes
#36

There is NO chemical compound in this universe that has a 100% backing of being safe for consumption. You are asking for the impossible in bad faith.

8 Likes
#37

Well, that depends on your ability to figure things out by yourself, but it is sadly true, has always been true, that is just reality of evolved social structure, those not able to do so are always at the receiving end, always the played pawns. I have no solution, but we must keep facing the problems or it only gets worse.

#39

I’m not an expert, but I personally feel more comfortable with certain vaccines

I think certain types of vaccines may have more evidence for positive affects

1 Like
#40

Pretty much no vaccines got proper placebo blind trials, for “ethical” reasons.

1 Like
#41

You mean do stuff based on vibes and anecdotes from fellow antivaxxers, right?

that is just reality of evolved social structure, those not able to do so are always at the receiving end, always the played pawns.

From a viewpoint where humans are exclusively considered cattle, why would the “elites” shut down large portions of the economy and spend dozens of billions to develop a vaccine asap? The only logical explanation would be that covid really is dangerous and that the vaccine is safe and effective for us working animals.

2 Likes
#43

That’s all based on fake research man. Trust no one, not even yourself.

1 Like
#44

“You mean do stuff based on vibes and anecdotes from fellow antivaxxers, right?”

OK, and here I leave this conversation. Have fun guys,

1 Like
#45

I haven’t seen the study, but have enough years gone by to study the long term affects?

How deadly is the covid virus now for normal folks?

2 Likes
#46

Thank you bicep, I promote you to tricep. As I remarked already, I was wondering when this Yale stuff would be finally mentioned here.

It is surprising and revealing how on a forum like this, people interested in longevity, there is almost complete shunning of all the issues where establishment corruption leads to shaving of several years of expected lifespan.

4 Likes