Feedback wanted on the three links per week limit in the opt-in forums (and beyond)

I will not be a part of that culture of deceit - I would rather cut my ties with this, or any other internet presence, which fosters such practices. That is not a threat - who am I threatening? - it is a personal and moral stand.

But is this happening here?

And would limiting to three links a week make much difference?

I'll admit it is hard for me to see how our current set up of opting into the sub-forums is not a good enough compromise.

UFOs get into conspiracy theory territory, but they are relevant enough to the paranormal that it makes sense to have section for them in the main forums.

Energy healing and shamanic healing are problematic in the sense that someone may be better served by more mainstream medical practices - but they are a key aspect to Psi at the least, if not a sign of some greater reality.

Psychedelics are arguably very important in the study of consciousness but they carry great risk if someone decides to use them in order to expand their mind b/c they read something here. Why I put that caveat warning in my threads about them.

Would it be valuable to have some sort of general note about COVID in the conspiracy thread section regarding the risks of non-vaccination?

Why don't we all recognise that people here hold a range of different views about psi, politics, and other scientific issues?

Why is that a bad thing - do we need to be on a forum on which everyone agrees? Isn't that what debate is supposed to be about?

I'd also hope that if we all share our views on any topic, we really don't need warning messages. Think for a second how tedious it is to be bombarded by COVID warnings on the internet! Surely people don't need to see more of these?

Can't we just cool this discussion a bit?

I'd also hope that if we all share our views on any topic, we really don't need warning messages. Think for a second how tedious it is to be bombarded by COVID warnings on the internet! Surely people don't need to see more of these?

Well COVID seems to be the point of contention here?

That and opposition to any kind of censorship in terms of limiting posts?

A warning in the opt-in section would be a kind of compromise between these two sides.

Dare I say I told you so?

I said that there are those here who feel kinship because Psi and also conspiracy theories, climate change denial and Covid hoax claims are all anti-science. I am not anti-science. Idealism has a long, long history and is embraced by many scientists. It is a philosophical position, not a scientific theory. Materialism is also a branch of metaphysics just like idealism - it is not science. When scientists, or anyone else, draws a conclusion from scientific reseach and then makes a claim that this proves materialism - that is not scientific proof, it is a personal view. 

The fact is that science is restricted by methodological naturalism which means that science can only investigate that which is deemed to be natural - not supernatural. So Psi and spirit are things deemed to be beyond the reach of scientific investigation. While that doesn't stop some scientists from applying the scientific method to research these phenomena, they are usually dismissed as being unscientific, often because of that methodological restriction. But let's be clear: those scientists are not being anti-scientific, but rather questioning (and testing) the extent of naturalism which has happened throughout the history of science. 

The things of this world which are deemed natural and which can legitimately be investigated by the scientific method are things which I, personally, would trust to scientists - yes, materialist scientists - to reseach. Again: I am not anti-science. Those scientists are better qualified to investigate these things than I am and I would prefer to trust them over Alex Jones or Steve Bannon. The danger we face with social media, incuding forums like this, is that misinformation is spread so easily to people who are hungry for confirmation of their own - often whacky - ideas. Jones and Bannon et al. prey on such people and feed them that misinformation. I will not be a part of that culture of deceit - I would rather cut my ties with this, or any other internet presence, which fosters such practices. That is not a threat - who am I threatening? - it is a personal and moral stand.

The problem is that suitably qualified scientists are not all coming to the same conclusion about the safety of COVID vaccines - just as Idealism is not accepted by many scientists - some of whom denigrate just about everything we discuss here.

Indeed, outsiders tend to assume that 'science' has proved beyond doubt that psychic phenomena do not exist. Very few scientists want to stick their heads up and point out that that is simply not true.

The phrase 'anti-science' doesn't make sense if not all suitably qualified scientists agree.

When I did scientific research as a PhD student and briefly as a postdoc, everything was far more courteous. At one point we wrote a paper contradicting some existing work. My prof suggested that we should offer the author of the original paper the opportunity to be an author on the new paper - which he accepted. Admittedly by staying friends with him we continued to have access to a rather useful piece of equipment, but that was how things worked back then. Since then things progressively deteriorated, so that in 1999 the editor of Nature, Sir John Maddox, stated that Rupert Sheldrake's book was a "Book fit for burning". Nowadays scientists disagree by calling other scientists (and those who agree with them) "anti-science" - the phrase is just a term of abuse.

If I see a scientific debate in which one side calls the other "anti-science", I tend to doubt the one dishing out the abuse, because as in normal life, people tend do that when they don't have good arguments.

Well COVID seems to be the point of contention here?

That and opposition to any kind of censorship in terms of limiting posts?

A warning in the opt-in section would be a kind of compromise between these two sides.

I couldn't agree with that unless I could opt out of the warning. We're all adults here. I get enough of that warning propaganda shit on twitter and youtube.

I couldn't agree with that unless I could opt out of the warning. We're all adults here. I get enough of that warning propaganda shit on twitter and youtube.

I figured it would be a stickied thread in Conspiracy, not a pop up that appears every time you go to the opt-in forums?

I'm just throwing stuff out, as I think it'd be a shame if a bunch of people parted ways over stuff in the opt-in forum.

That said, I can see the moral position of those on both sides of this so the ideal would be some solution/compromise.

I figured it would be a stickied thread in Conspiracy, not a pop up that appears every time you go to the opt-in forums?

I'm just throwing stuff out, as I think it'd be a shame if a bunch of people parted ways over stuff in the opt-in forum.

That said, I can see the moral position of those on both sides of this so the ideal would be some solution/compromise.

Somebody else set this wedge up to divide us, and they have been smacking it with a big hammer 24/7. And now Karlmarling has brought the damn division here into the main public forums. It's like a damn cancer eating away at us, there is no part of the body it won't reach in time... because it's deliberately created like that. This division was very well isolated in the hidden opt-in forums... until now. Some bugger always raises the issue... which forces a division... and before you know it... we're all taking sides. For gods sake, can we not act like reasonable adults, where there is room for other opinions, and leave this nonsense in the hidden opt-in forums well alone.

Somebody else set this wedge up to divide us, and they have been smacking it with a big hammer 24/7. And now Karlmarling has brought the damn division here into the main public forums. It's like a damn cancer eating away at us, there is no part of the body it won't reach in time... because it's deliberately created like that. This division was very well isolated in the hidden opt-in forums... until now. Some bugger always raises the issue... which forces a division... and before you know it... we're all taking sides. For gods sake, can we not act like reasonable adults, where there is room for other opinions, and leave this nonsense in the hidden opt-in forums well alone.

It seems the problem existed as an issue regarding at least one mod's feelings about allowing what they consider to be the spreading of misinformation about a potentially immediate life/death health concern?

I don't think Kamarling bringing it up here created the dispute?

It seems the problem existed as an issue regarding at least one mod's feelings about allowing what they consider to be the spreading of misinformation about a potentially immediate life/death health concern?

I don't think Kamarling bringing it up here created the dispute?

I don't know what you're talking about?

I think we have to take into consideration the zeitgeist of which this discussion is taking place.

The western world as a whole is having a massive crises about freedom of speech. Side by side and absolutely core to the issue, is the censorship taking centre stage. People are afraid of getting cancelled for sharing different opinions on matters. Everyone is basically going mental right now. Take a look at Joe Rogan and the amount of heat that the establishment has put on him. He is massive massive figure who cannot be controlled, is relatable to many people because of his everyday-man persona and gives people what they crave; that is, long form discussion on various topics.

Why the hell is that so threatening?

And okay so what is my point I hear you say? The above is just a macro-representation of where we are at in the west at the moment. It's my feeling that people are getting really tired of the censorship (because it's now reaching ridiculous levels) and don't like the way this is all headed.

By continuing to censor Stan and others based on your dislike for his politics or views, viewed with the above context in mind, you are behind the times and are operating in the old ways of the internet and world. People need to be able to express themselves with the way things are developing. Yes you have the right to decide what to do regarding rules etc, and forums/communities are like houses as it is commonly understood; be a good guest because it is not your house etc, but no-one will want to visit you if the rules are either old fashioned or too stifling.

I think it's best to keep the controversial forums opt-in, as is, and stop participating and engaging if you don't like the content. All of this talk about leaving or threatening to leave from various members and mods, and I think especially from an outsider view point, is actually quite off putting. Do you really need to be so dramatic?

The above is my heartfelt opinion and is not intended to be malicious. Just being truthful.