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 idea that Republicans like these don't want to see cuts in military spending often comes down to stereotype, though.
Many Republicans HAVE Been skeptical of military spending, calling for reexamination of where the money is going and criticizing lawmakers for spending too much on the military.
The holdouts here are annoyingly vague in what they're calling for, but they do seem to be echoing the Republicans who would like to see cuts.
Sounds like a bug. Report it?
ActivityPub requires that every actor have both an inbox and an outbox.
So yes, this would require a change to the AP standard.
That's a really ridiculous position seeing as these are representatives acting through the normal order and rules of the House.
Not to mention, acting with the complicity of the entire Democratic contingent which has voted in lockstep to maintain this gridlock rather than resolve it and begin the work of the House.
It's nothing like Jan 6th.
I mean, that's kind of the point, isn't it?
If the representatives of the people can't agree on how to spend enormous amounts of society's resources, then that really says something about whether it should be spent.
It's part of the checks and balances design of the system, making sure government remains accountable to the people.
@YourNeighbor57 @AmandaMarcotte
Fascism? What in the world?
The speaker fight is literally about democratic ideals of letting people vote for the direction they'd like their chamber to go, not top down imposition of will, with the headline holdouts insisting on even more checks on the authority of management, even more power for the people, so to speak.
Talk of Democrats "bailing them out" papers over the larger picture where they're choosing to keep the House shut down. Some Pyrrhic victory that is.
But at least they're sticking it to the meanies, right?
US Politics, Speaker of the House
*sigh* Insurrection? It really cheapens the word when it's thrown around so lightly like this.
No, this is not insurrection. This is how the system is SUPPOSED to work. When the people we elect disagree on the way forward we're supposed to stop and not proceed, as we'd be moving in a direction that doesn't represent a consensus of the people.
It's silly to describe this as chaos. This is nothing happening, neutrality, the opposite of chaos.
Anyway, at any point any of the vast majority of House members-elect can cross party lines and resolve this question. All the talk of "they" ignores that simple fact.
Ooof, this thread got long, but another use case came up, and I wonder what people might say about alternatives.
Someone asked about how to boost an image post but add alttext if the original posted didn't include it.
I was thinking, this is a great use for QT. Anyone have a solid workaround, though?
I'd say it's the exact opposite, because it's directly pointing to someone else's post, putting their post front and center.
On the other hand, I'd say people who suggest just linking to the other post, THAT seems to me to be making a new post all about them, with the original post something of an after thought that, meh, I guess you can go click to if you really want to.
To answer your question, I think that wades into tricky waters because it takes some trust to add alttext to someone else's images. It would likely seem as if the first poster made the alttext when it was actually added by someone else.
I would be a little surprised if there was a good way to do it now.
I COULD see a feature added to a client like Mastodon where a person could propose alttext, and the original poster could accept it, automatically putting out an edited post.
Sounds like a good idea to me!
And purely to opine:
Adding #Alttext sounds like a pretty good use for #QT on #Mastodon, since there's been so much talk about that lately.
Yeah, different voting methods are options, but there are complications as electing a Speaker is pretty different from electing a legislator.
It's key that a Speaker is an executive with discretionary, direct power over the voter, so the voter might want to negotiate with a candidate about how the power will be used, for example how many amendments a bill might have or the process for removing the Speaker, both issues that came up this week.
I'm not sure how practical it is to hold these negotiations with every candidate. It might be theoretically possible but just not doable in time, leaving the voters less able to shape the rules for their session.
I think it's one of those cases where there's no perfect way, but they work the best they can among non-ideal options.
The problem is that it's like people keep realizing that, and noting it, and then a few days later forgetting, treating the guy like he's the center of the universe, and then later once again realizing how impotent he is.
And repeat.
Trump has been impotent for a long time.
I sure wish we'd stop forgetting, and especially, I wish we'd stop treating him in a way that makes him feel big and important.
It's the only way he's going to really go away.
Keep in mind that House rules aren't really focused on bids. They don't require anyone to announce their candidacy or even accept it from others.
The members of the House, that we elected, are free to vote for whomever they want, so this is really a story of representatives rejecting each others' proposals than a story about any candidate's bid.
In any case, the position of Speaker is powerful under the rules of the chamber, and intentionally doesn't rely so much on voluntary cooperation. His authority would be strong, under the rules that grant him that authority.
That's probably part of why so many have chosen to vote to keep the House closed rather than get down to business under a powerful Speaker that they disagree with.
A slightly different answer is that because the #House rules are based on a hierarchy with a really powerful Speaker as I mentioned above, it's therefore really important to a) choose a good person to do the job, and b) get consent from members who would agree to live under the chain of command.
Any alternative to electing a new Speaker would at least threaten to undermine those outcomes, so the chamber is given no alternative that might tempt them away from getting it done.
It forces them to compromise now to hopefully avoid problems in the future.
@gabe For the rules of the House and Senate, a whole lot evolved over generations of experience as they felt out what did and didn't work. They also drew a lot of inspiration from older legislatures around the world, as you can see in their early historical documents.
In this particular case, contrast the House against the Senate.
In the #Senate, with only 100 "upstanding" members, there's time to indulge them all, so all senators are fairly equal under the rules. Even leaders often have to ask permission to act, just like everyone else.
The #House has so many more members, and which are less "respectable" people, so they require an overseeing Speaker to set the schedule.
Given that, then, if there's no Speaker then the one position to set a schedule is vacant and nobody to schedule anything other than electing a Speaker!
Keep in mind that the US has enough revenues to pay its debts. It would not default.
If the debt ceiling wasn't raised, the US would be legally bound to prioritize the paying of its debts to avoid defaulting.
Maybe someday the debt load would be so high that revenues wouldn't cover it, but we're nowhere near that point now.
And just to express my personal biases :) I would argue that #Fediverse platforms aren't all as limiting as #Twitter, giving a variety of interfaces focused on different content forms, and making it much more inviting to creators.
Me, I like to write, so instances without the tight Twitter character limits are SO MUCH MORE conducive to my bothering to post here.
For people who've asked why the #House keeps voting, it seems that's literally all they can do AND FURTHER, it's what they **must** do, under the rules of the chamber.
If they are in session, they have to be voting.
If the members-elect choose to adjourn until noon, they are committing their future selves to vote at noon. And keep voting so long as they're in session.
At this point in the House's processes there isn't an option for working on something else. This is the one, singular next order of business, to be overseen by the Clerk without a Speaker to choose a different task.
Procedures are fun!
So the design wasn't inadequate.
We just all voted to empower inadequate operators. And we reelected them over and over again.
But then, the whole point was for officials to answer to the people, and they got the answer when we approved of their management of government.
We got the government we wanted, as designed. We just need to stop wanting dumb things and electing dumb people to give it to us.
But that's not how this election process works.
By the rules of selecting a Speaker, there's no requirement that anyone actually be in the race, and in fact they regularly vote for people who refuse to run. They did so even this week.
The representatives that we voted to represent us are voting as they see fit, and the vast majority of them, Democrats and Republicans, are indicating that they think the House is better not operating than operating under the power of each others' candidates.
Democrats could easily sideline the hardcore Republicans, but they, too, are voting to keep it shut down.
*shrug*
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:
