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
It doesn't though.
The system was specifically designed with the assumption that good faith couldn't be counted on. The framers spoke at length about that kind of concern as they engineered our procedures.
If nothing else, this is the root of the "if men were angles" quotation and a huge motivation for checks and balances at the core of the US design.
@sevignes@mas.to
Yes, adding specialized information is just one example of a use case.
Or, related to a specific example today, if I had a bunch of followers from my hometown, and someone else posted a joke that would be *extra* funny to us but not to the poster, then I would QT the joke with the added line, "Sounds like Blah Blah's Restaurant, right?!" and tag friends.
Without QT there's no good way to amplify the joke like that. Either the line is disconnected from the joke--clicking through the link ruins the pacing--or I'm replying to someone with something their followers wouldn't get.
QT enables many such positive use cases, empowering expression.
@hudsonplaskoff@mastodon.world
That runs into problems with the Rules of the House where requirements for majority votes would hamper a true coalition government.
Congress operates very differently from Parliament.
But a handful of centrist Democrats could resolve this pretty quickly, should they break ranks to get the work started.
Honestly, if more people had that approach to US politics, US politics would probably be in a better place.
The politicians spend far too much time showboating for people who don't really follow it all closely instead of actually doing a good job.
I always tell people, if they're not interested in technicalities and CSPAN, they will have better lives just reading books out under trees.
Well, I'm not sure they DO expect different results.
We don't get to have a clear picture into what's going on behind the scenes as they negotiate, but in the end this is not just some sort of figurehead.
The Speaker has a lot of authority in the House to direct processes, and members honestly don't agree on giving that power to anyone.
They're currently voting against giving anyone that power because they can't agree on anyone who would wield it well.
By the rules, better to conduct no work than do actually bad things.
Yep! You put your finger on it.
The defining of regions is a very complex topic that has to weigh so many factors, so we end up spending a lot of time and energy doing our best to do it as well as we can.
It's very subjective, based on subjective valuations.
BUT we've decided that representing diverse regions, communities, and interest groups is important enough that we accept that cost.
There's room for people to disagree about the value of doing this, but for my taste I'm a big supporter of it, as I really like to have that national diversity represented in our legislative institutions.
@J12t@social.coop I wonder if it wouldn't be trivial for Mastodon to allow a username of @@example.com that the webfinger would resolve to the default single user account.
@J12t@social.coop
Ah, I assume it was a choice of the UI designers not to bother users with the http urls, figuring users would rather see concise username schemes.
@sarahc regions are more likely represented when seats are allocated on the basis of region :)
The other thing is that in the US system we hold representatives personally accountable for their actions. I keep track of how MY member is voting, and I call him and yell at him.
Proportional voting breaks that link as well.
I'd say proportional voting has a place in some circumstances, but the US is big, diverse, and has complex challenges that our voting system has to deal with.
I WOULD absolutely get away from first past the post, though. Still elect specific reps, but do it through ranked voting.
@J12t@social.coop if you check the first link below, my understanding is that ActivityPub does use such URLs behind the scenes. A client like Mastodon translates the @ address into URLs.
And @bobwyman I thought I came across something somewhere saying that DIDs were supported, but I can't find it right now.
The purpose is that House members have to come together behind a Speaker to manage the processes in the chamber, and among the entire membership of the House, they have strong disagreements about who should serve that role and how.
It's really not about McCarthy since the House membership could vote in whoever they want, if they agreed on a way to go. They don't, though.
The absolute solidarity among Democrats is making it even harder for the House to choose a Speaker, but that's just part of the extreme division being represented by the people we elected.
@sarahc the downside to that is a lack of representation of different groups with diverse interests, different communities with different needs, and lack of respect for regional differences around the large country.
Everything involving US election methods revolves around balancing competing and valid interests, even setting aside corrupt issues.
US Politics shitposting
I think this is a pretty hilarious observation, regardless of political leanings!
US Speaker of the House
Prepared speeches are standard operating procedure for the US Congress.
I'm sure they didn't even have to be asked since writing and reading out composed speeches on the floor of the chamber is about half of what Congresspeople do in their official capacities, whether anyone is listening or not.
@sevignes@mas.to
But that's a different function.
When I QT it's because I want to share something interesting or exciting with other people, when I feel my contribution would only be noise in the original thread without contributing to that discussion.
They are very different interactions.
To clarify context, I don't mean the context of the post but the context of the content, say adding in some specialized knowledge that the general public might not have, so they might miss.
Character limits and QT are different issues.
Well, except that at the moment the standard Mastodon character limit on QTs is zero :)
But it'd be an advance even to implement QTs with a small limit, even say 20 characters, just enough to highlight the reason the original quote is worth boosting.
Some of the concessions diminishing the Speaker's power, giving rank-and-file more say, would benefit Democrats, though, giving them more opportunities to push amendments and such.
Some of the Republican criticism of the whole thing is how the concessions would benefit the other side of the aisle.
Careful about throwing out babies with bathwater.
@Maxanadu_MX02 the vote failed, and it's just another sign that #Trump's present influence in the party is often grossly inflated.
(and I hate to see anything about him further inflated)
It turns out one *answers* present, but since they didn't submit a name, it doesn't count as a vote. Representatives who are there but answer present will change the number needed to win.
"A candidate for Speaker may receive a majority of the votes cast, and be elected, while failing to obtain a majority of the full membership because some Members either are not present to vote or instead answer “present” rather than voting for a candidate."
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:
