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
Please quote him saying this.
You say DeSantis and all of the other conservatives say this, so please quote them.
Because all of the reporting that has been cited says otherwise.
From what I've heard on reporting on this topic, it's not even that black Republicans ARE on board with the education standards, but that black independants are on board with it, that nonpartisans, academics, promoted the standards that are under scrutiny here.
Not that it should matter at all.
Such matters of fact shouldn't come down to the identities of the people recognizing them. That just comes down to ad hominem argument that gets us nowhere.
So yeah, it's okay to be wrong. And if you really want to go that direction, I will be happy to see you admit that you are at any point :-)
Although actually I don't really care. This is social media and people are welcome to be wrong and to work on their hobby horses as much as they want.
But it absolutely doesn't get us anywhere for people to attack claims that aren't being made.
It's entirely possible for something to have immediate benefit while being overall for the worse, like downing that entire cup of sugar that gives you the immediate sugar rush while generally contributing to diabetes.
The world is not so black and white.
Sometimes things that are of benefit are in the larger picture a harm.
People who deny that don't do any good, they just come across as looking foolish and myopic.
I mean, that just agrees with them.
What's the point of pointing it out? I don't know, if nothing else, showing that sides can come together on points of common agreement?
I'm not here to judge WHY you're agreeing. I'm just interested that you are agreeing with them now.
Can you quote a mainstream conservative saying otherwise?
Again, it seems like you're arguing against a stance that isn't being taken, arguing against a strawman.
@ghosttownoli@mastodon.gamedev.place
Well, what work is that?
You see how there's a difference between saying slavery was good and saying that slaves developed skills that could be applied for their personal benefit?
Those are absolutely not the same positions.
But that just gets me back to wondering what your goal is? If it really is true that people who don't agree with you cannot have their minds changed, Why bother writing all of that that just makes you sound kind of nuts?
If the world really is so futile and divided into people who have been enlightened as you have versus those who haven't, without particular chance to redeeming folks who aren't as informed as you are, why bother reaching out at all?
The article said otherwise, but okay let's go with you, what conservatives said slavery is good?
Courts will decide, but we will as well.
Just like anything else you are welcome to have your own opinion, and in such a politicized area, everybody naturally will.
In this case a huge factor comes down to weather or not you believe the prosecutor has been able to prove that Trump is a time traveler. Was he able to go back in time from after the election to before? Because if not, the whole case falls apart.
I repeat, What are you talking about?
And I will clarify, keep in mind that "they’re trying to take over our government right now!" is a really out there phrase to use, if you didn't realize how it came across.
Like, that sort of thing is the ravings of a crazy person.
@SallyStrange@strangeobject.space
The thing is, fascist regimes gained support of the people for reasons. It wasn't just random.
When you start handing power to others to solve problems, well, it goes in that direction, and that is even in cases where you might think the trade-off is worth it.
When you hand people power to control what information you get, what you see, that is a bit dangerous even if you are personally willing to accept the danger.
Likely simply not there under legal and constitutional constraints.
The charges were very weak on factual bases, and chatter says that it was the best they could do because other avenues didn't really have legal standing in the first place.
Dude, your specific example refuted the discussion, showing that it was off base!
Well it's an issue of no perfect solution, only trade-offs with downsides.
In this case the alternative is empowering somebody else to censor the content that you see.
Are they going to do a good job? Or are they going to censor things in ways that you don't actually like? Or are they going to actually take advantage of that power that you are giving them to censor things in ways that intentionally manipulate you?
There are serious downsides to handing other people control over what you see, even if the motivation might be reasonable. It still takes a big risk.
@folkerschamel @SallyStrange@strangeobject.space @steve
Fediblock Nonsense
I don't think it's so much that they allow it as they have a general rule against interfering in the activities of other courts without really clear malfunction, and in this case it looks like judge after judge, court after court ruled against the guy, leaving little room for the SCOTUS to act and throw out all of those rulings.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere because it looked like the applicant had his day in court, and they didn't see room to override all of those other judges.
What in the world are you talking about?
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:
