volkris @volkris@qoto.org
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
The thing to keep in mind is that Trump is absolutely no leader. He doesn't come up with this stuff on his own. Instead, he just parrots whatever he sees coming out of mainstream conservative US media.
And mainstream conservative media is full of idiots with the minds of children and sports analysts.
This is the stuff the kids say they want to see, so Trump repeats it.
Meh.
It's marketing of a product and an invitation to scifi dreams, something of an ARG or a fan club.
It's not villainous. Just kind of dumb.
It's funny how the ruling emphasizes Trump's administration's inability or unwillingness to even put up a solid fight.
According to the court they didn't even attempt to satisfy the need to show evidence that they were acting rationally. It's as if their lawyers were sabotaging the case.
https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/06/25-5087-2176040.pdf
I don't know how things are in day to day politics in Canada, but in the US at least it's really clear that votes matter far more than what rhetoric some bloviating politician squawks out to a microphone.
That's why I was looking at specific voting. Talk is cheap, so I tend to dismiss whatever Poilievre may say, personally, maybe on behalf of a large group to engage with the even larger group of constituents.
Again I ask questions like, what in the SpaceX filings is false? Where is the actual fraud?
Yes, it seems foolish for indexes to be including the company like this. That may be many things, but fraud?
Notably, the Raw Story story throws around the f word quite a lot, but it doesn't lay out fraud either.
Even if you want to focus on the indexes and say they're violating trust to include SpaceX, well, that's the index, not SpaceX.
SpaceX seems like a foolish, hyped stock to me. But that's not fraud in and of itself.
Where is the fraud exactly?
If people want to take a bet on a risk that's one thing, but what in SpaceX filings is false?
I didn't see it mentioned in the article, but maybe I missed it.
Well, it's more like investors are expected to throw a record $75 billion in the IPO.
Tapped makes it sound like the money is being taken when really it's being given, for better or worse.
But it's worth emphasizing that both represent marketing, with the terms in common use detached form history.
Still, if we want to look at origins, we consider Federalist 10:
"A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place"
Federalist 10, by Madison, looks at republic vs democracy in depth as the terms are intended in the US context.
A think a lot of advertising is hamstrung by publish backlash to tracking and tailoring ads.
We don't want tailored ads? Well, then i guess we're going to see a bunch of stuff we're not particularly interested in. We're welcome.
This is sensationalism.
Secret job? He was just one of countless bureaucrats working in the government without the authority to do stuff requiring public vetting.
This is just trying to stir up drama and get clicks.
Meh, it's only deeply problematic if the hearing was granted the full attention of the Court. It could be but a minor annoyance if the Court simply checked the box and dismissed the case after a perfunctory hearing.
Not a great image, but maybe there is no perfect solution to this issue.
But that letter is meant to be PR, persuasive, not solid reporting of what happened.
I see accounts like this, though:
"The spending estimates for the Department of National Defence include funding for Operation Unifier, an armed forces training mission for Ukrainian soldiers. The Conservatives voted against approving that estimate." [1]
Voting against etimates that included spending for the program may not have been the vote against the program that is being portrayed. I was looking for more solid evidence of that.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/late-night-house-of-commons-carbon-tax-1.7052741
More importantly: stop reelecting the same reps that have proven ineffective, if not complicit, so far.
Calling them every day just makes them feel seen, as if their political ads are working.
And thus his brand gets promoted...
volkris
boosted
All of a sudden those maniacs compiling everything themselves from known good sources seem a great deal more reasonable.
The platform remains valued and actively used for a decade and a half.
That's a clearly measurable indicator that shows success.
@NMBA because he voted against a free trade deal?
That's not exactly blocking funds.
I mean... Trump likes that kind of attention, and his more competent PR folks use it to his advantage.
So many of the No Kings folk don't realize they're playing into his game, actually helping the guy. Their methods are counterproductive, and stuff like this helped get him reelected.
I think you're going the wrong way with that.
This setting seems to be a pretty accurate portrayal of what a joke the guy is.
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
volkris's choices:
