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
Under the laws laying out the process, the joint session of Congress is to scrutinize and *count* votes, not really to *certify* them.
By their oath of office every congressperson has the obligation to go through that legal process.
Anyway, alright, so I asked what alternative you were proposing, you said they need to re-commit, but now it sounds like you're saying the re-commitment wasn't the alternative you were really seeking.
So again, what alternative are you proposing?
Ha, I'd respond that we shouldn't rely on governments to correct records.
I'm sure Republicans would be happy to work with Democrats to get the House open, but so far Democrats have made statement after statement saying they were eager to keep the drama going, voting alongside the Republican fringe choosing to keep the House closed.
That the Democrats have been voting unanimously only gives weight to their public statements.
Once there is actual legislation at stake that directly impacts constituents, hopefully there will be more pressure for them to work across the aisle, though.
Every member of the House and Senate is sworn in with just that commitment.
So I guess your wish is granted.
You're not forcing anyone to do anything of the sort.
If a person doesn't want to use the service then they don't get your content. It's up to them.
That's not how the House process works, though. Parties don't nominate people. Individual representatives-elect nominate people, and any member is allowed to nominate anyone they want.
Anyway, and you're happy about keeping the House shut down until that happens?
It's fine if your answer is yes. We just need to be clear about making that choice.
I mean, they pretty much do...
I don't know where you get that libertarian financiers only want a large military and policing when that is the opposite of how libertarianism is generally understood.
It would be like saying vegetarian dinner hosts only want a ton of meat.
So what do you base your proposal on?
@mnutty @kgarrahan @StevenBeschloss
I think it's more realistic to think about it the other way around: by the rules of the House this whole process is in the hands of the representatives-elect, so it's not so much about McCarthy fearing but rather reps thinking he's best for the job and not giving up yet.
Remember that the House doesn't have things like declared candidacy. The process is based on nomination.
Think of this as bottom up, not top down.
@StevenBeschloss Exactly!
The Democrats keep putting out statements bemoaning the closed House while celebrating the drama among Republicans, but they aren't being held accountable for their own votes to maintain that situation.
IMO Democrats should not be voting this way, voting alongside the Republican fringe to be clear, and should at least refrain from voting so the #House can get to work.
But we should at the least call them out on their part in this situation, even if one might think they're doing the right thing.
Well that's wrong.
Your followers are humans who can make their own choices. You're not locking them into anything.
And there are different forms of advocacy. It's not like a religious practice where there's One True Way of going about it.
@gloria@mindly.social @caiocgo @Gargron
It's not essentially the same as a qt because it's a different presentation with different semantics.
Instead of "Hey, let me take this and build on it!" it's "Here's my content, and I guess if you want to you can go look at this other content."
It's very different both in meaning and presentation.
What does that mean?
What features would that entail, what would the user experience look like, etc?
I'd like to look to the local timeline, but it's hard to find an instance that has that critical mass of people also interested in the same topics.
In theory it's a great idea. In practice it's tricky for the same reason that it's hard to launch a new social media platform: you need the people there to get the people there.
Through discussion we've identified many, many use cases where boosts and other workarounds really aren't sufficient.
The most recent time this came up was in terms of adding captions while boosting an image without alttext.
#QT provides functionality that really can't be made up for in any other way, enabling people to build positively on others' contribution.
That's it.
It's their server running the instance; they can do what they want with it unless there's some sort of legally binding agreement on file.
Well, what alternative are you proposing?
How do you figure?
It seems to me their voters would have voted them in regardless of anything McCarthy might have done.
Heck, such people might have worn the sanction as a badge of honor to get even more excitement out of their constituents.
Reporting says the National Guard was offered but DC and the legislative branch refused to bring them on, even as the administration was warning them that they should step up security of the Capitol.
But despite hypocrisy we should at least endeavor to correct the factual record.
At the least that's one way to call out hypocrisy that can really live in the factual grey areas.
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:
