🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@nate_river is pawoo drawings only or do they include real life pictures? same with baarag? I deally id like to seperate the two out on any list I provide.

@zleap Good point. Though also keep in mind we are more of a "place for stem people to hang out" rather than a "place for us to have curated stem content"

The idea being that the vast majority of users want one instance as their home and only that one instance. As such if you are simply personally interested in engaging with adult content for your own enjoyment that is a perfectly acceptable reason on its own.

Hey, anyone out there know where I can find a list of servers that provide adult content?

I have no intention of defederating or blocking any servers on the lit from QOTO itself. I do however want to provide the list to our new users so they have an easy way to block those domains on their personal accounts should they wish to make the timeline safe for work.

Thanks.

#mastoadmin #fediblock

@bonifartius yea there is a lot of ugliness out there in the wild :)

@namark

> Whatever argument you want to make about superiority of one name over the other as just names, I will not object to, I don’t care. My point is that the name is often not acceptable because of the intent of people who commonly use, who when asked why, as a knee jerk reaction demonstrate that it is out of some irrational sense spite.

I have yet to witness that. Everyone I have asked why they use the term "Chinese virus" all answer the same "Because it came from china", a portion of those go so far as to say its also because it is a more descriptive term, and follows the normal way we name viruses.

Not one such person have I met has ever claimed it was out of spite or suggested as much.

@trinsec @rlamacraft

@dannyboy Its great to have you here and look forward to getting to know you. Reach out to me anytime if you need anything or even just want to chat.

@dannyboy no worries :)

@namark

> No, the op was why not call covid chinese coronavirus, not why wuhan flu was called covid/coronavirus, nice diversion.

I did not say he was arguing to call it the Wuhan virus. Here is exactly what I said:

> It was asked why a name that referenced the location, used early on before the virus had a common name was unacceptable in reference to china but was acceptable in reference to the UK.

The OP asked about "chinese virus" and specifically wondered why that was unacceptable and names referencing other locations are, as my statement made clear. Likewise you had asserted among your reasons that precedence was one reason why.

I quote you here where yo assert that:

> Asking why chinese virus when it already has a name...

The "Wuhan Virus" term has earlier precedence, and thus arguing, as you did that precedence is among the reasons why an argument to change the name holds less weight is therefore also an argument why we should not have the current common name either.

It also shows that there is a preference to change the name to avoid pointing out the location of origin of the virus when that location is china, as we violated precedence to do so, but we seem to have no compulsion to do the same when other countries are likewise reference with similar precedence.

As such it is an entirely valid counterargument, you just happened to summarize my statements and argument in that regard incorrectly.

@trinsec @rlamacraft

@dannyboy Tusky has always been super slow for uploads for me and I dont know why, i think its the app. Our server is pretty fast.

@dannyboy On our peertube or on the here? IIRC it is supported by vanilla mastodon isnt it?

@namark

Its not besides the point at all, it is literally the point of the discussion. It was asked why a name that referenced the location, used early on before the virus had a common name was unacceptable in reference to china but was acceptable in reference to the UK. So the fact that we can establish that the first common wide spread name was, in fact "Wuhan virus" is very much relevant to demonstrating that the reason is because there is aversion to associating it with the chinese more so than with other nations.

No one even once suggested we need to name it chinese virus to punish china because they were bad... they were bad, they screwed up and knew this was the consequence for a decade and never fixed the problem, so yes they did bad, but that is NOT why people used the term "chinese virus", it was used because that is commonly how we give viruses common names, its simply a typical pattern, particularly when a term like "coronavirus" is non descriptive and means something different than how it is now being used, so there is an actual practical reason to avoid that as a common name.

@trinsec @rlamacraft

@namark

As for the "it already had a name" argument. Its first name was "The Wuhan flu" coined by the people on the ground. While that isnt the same as "the chinese virus" (which is more vague) it does counter your point, if the preference were truly for the first established name we would have called it the Wuhan Flu but do not. Further showing there is a great tendency to want to avoid associating it with China than with other countries.

@trinsec @rlamacraft

@namark

The sample size of new viruses is far too small to be able to determine statistically if they produce new viruses more. However they have produced two new viruses in just a short number of decades which is certainly unusually high.

That said, we do not need to assert that they produce more viruses than average to blame them for **this** virus, we would only need to know that if we blamed them for being a contributor to the overall number of total viruses, which we are not.

We know quite confidently that the same thing that produced the old varient of SARS is the same thing that produced this varient, that is wet markets that do not operate with safetfy standards that is effectively condoned by the government (nothing is done to stop them). we have known for some time that this practice, and the policy for handling it, tends to produce cross-species viruses and has a high likelihood of transmitting that onto the general public.

Furthermore their handling of the outbreak once it occured, particularly in the early stages was substandard and involved more disinformation and hiding the facts than dealing with it.

So yes we very much can blame their government and their policies for the virus, particularly when they had a scare just a decade earlier and the causes were well known and no one did anything to prevent it happening again, and it did.

@trinsec @rlamacraft

@mtorpey

> Has a wider analysis been done on this? I'd love to see the result!

I have seen a few over the years that use this approach. Sadly due to the highly political nature of the subject good quality studies, or even studies that show consensus overall, are hard to find.

I am sharing a post I made from some time back so sadly I dont have the links on hand of the studies I had seen around the time I was researching this topic. Because the studies were lacking in this regard I also had to do my own number sleuthing to get to the bottom of it. While my personal analysis and conclusions obviously should be taken with a grain of salt not having been peer reviewed as a professional data scientist I obviously have some confidence in my methods when there is a lack of good peer reviewed articles. Typically even when I do my own investigation I like to use the body of peer reviewed articles to help me be aware of and avoid pitfalls (the reporting issue you mentioned being a good example of this of course), so that would have been helpful for me to have and disappointed in the lack thereof.

Anyway as I recall from my research at the time I was only able to find one tudy that actually looked at causation analysis, and it wasnt even peer reviewed.

@bonifartius Who did that, I agree its generally unacceptable short of a few fringe cases (like someone who intentionally murders someone else).

@mtorpey so to take your consideration under advisement here is a different chart which does not have the issues with reporting you pointed out. In this case it represents homicide rates, not violent crime, and therefore not effected by the change in reporting practices of general crime. Furthermore the chart shows adjustments for anomalies in the data to provide a more accurate picture.

Again we see a significant upward trend right around the year of the handgun ban and with a consistent but more gradual upward trend that followed the earlier 1987 ban. The data appears to still hold true once the difference in reporting is factored out.

@Diptchip I have no issue with people owning fully automatic weapons. Generally they are not considered any more effective at mass killing, in fact they are considered less effective according to military training. Fully automatic is only ever used for random cover fire and never to hit a visible target.

@mtorpey Ah yes I was looking elsewhere. Let me look into that and get back to you. It should be stated the fact that dozens of other countries show the trend listed here still strongly supports the conclusion. Thought that particular data point may well need to be removed.