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
Well right.
And McDonald's is free to ignore customers and start offering hamburgers without hamburger. But they're not going to sell many of those.
And then it all comes down to what voters want, and if voters don't like what a party is offering they won't vote for them, it's all up to the voters.
I just note how ad hominem this is.
No actual position or argument is cited or criticized or disputed. It's just plain throwing mud at individuals.
It's not very compelling, or at least, I hope it's not.
I mean, the voters are doing the nomination!
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
It sounds like you're saying these other conspiracy theories weren't involved in whatever conspiracy theory you think this administration is using to charge Trump.
But I just honestly just don't understand your comment the way it was phrased.
It seems like you just brought up a bunch of irrelevant stuff to say it was irrelevant.
The problem is that the allegations set forth in the indictment are factually inconsistent.
The conspiracy theory was ridiculous from the beginning, and it looks like this was the best they could do with it, and it just doesn't factually hold together.
They accuse the guy of knowing something that he probably didn't know before it was even possible to know it, both assuming that he was smart enough to know, which I don't think he was, and that he was a time traveler, able to see the future, which I definitely don't think he was able to do.
Trump is a moron, but he definitely did not know that he had lost an election that hadn't happened yet.
I just see it as an extension of all of the impeachments. It's just a lot of people are done with boys crying wolf.
It's no surprise that this was coming. It's not huge news. It's just part of a political game at this point, and a lot of people just aren't that interested in the political game.
I'm actually more curious as to how you read that.
I haven't looked up the contacts of her statements, but how do you see it?
I've heard Tim Scott trying to score political points based on this. And I don't care what the political side is, if a person is wrong he is wrong.
Even Republicans can be wrong, believe it or not 🙂
Even Republicans trying to score political points.
YES! I am looking at exactly what is being taught and what is being proposed, and I am not looking at any sort of theory behind why they would teach it, or any theory of motivation or conspiracy or any other abstraction.
I honestly don't care why they would be teaching something true. All I care about is that they are teaching something true.
You know what's not a great argument to tell somebody who is noticing that they are being gaslit?
"You are not being gaslit."
Yeah, that doesn't really help, to be honest :)
Again, if you think this is about slavery apologetics then you really don't understand what's going on, as reported by fairly widely accepted members of the press not to mention primary sources like the officials themselves in the public record.
Simply saying this is not a straw man argument doesn't actually make it not a straw man argument.
Keep in mind that I would be on equal ground of asking you the exact same questions.
Are you really such a wilting flower that your ego cannot tolerate the embarrassment of finding out you were wrong, as proven by the sources cited here, do you really believe that children are such delicate snowflakes that they must be protected from learning what really happened instead of your own narrative that it clearly refuted by the record?
The problem is that citations presented often disprove the claims being made. So the claims seem flat out factually wrong.
If a person wants to make a heated argument against something, it's a really good first step to first prove the thing that they are arguing against actually exists.
Again this is where the straw man argument comes up.
People notice when an argument is being made that just doesn't really address the reality they've seen.
It comes across as gas lighting at that point.
What other suspect parts were there?
If you're talking about your question about how I would describe various race riots, well if I had to give a pretty short and simple description, it would be people rising up to try to escape injustices of society.
I wouldn't generally want to cast various events into one single bucket since each one had their different nuances, different matches to light the fire, but if you want a summary description that might be my quick take.
Why in the world do you want to make people feel bad about themselves? That's bizarre, sounds flat out sociopathological, that you have a goal of making children feel bad about themselves, or at least, you are disappointed that the state is not making children feel bad about themselves.
I mean wow.
YES, and the curriculum does teach that.
Like, you're on their side. You're in agreement with them. They work to teach those horrors.
You are in agreement.
Huh. You've misunderstood my position, and really if you so misunderstand my position it makes me suspect that you've misunderstood so many others' as well.
The problem is that what they came up with is so empty that it ended up being the dopamine hit that it could have been in he beginning.
They had to pare back charges to the point of having precious little left.
Trump is to be defeated in the court of public opinion. All of this legal stuff is trying to skip the messy task of talking to other voters and informing them, and instead trying to short circuit the democratic process with a questionable legal process.
It didn't work.
I would propose the alternative of actually talking to voters and showing them that the reasons they support the guy are wrong, that he failed on so many of his promises, and simply defeating him on account of his being a loser and failure at the job.
All of this legal nonsense only supports him when there is such a better direction that calls out Trump for being a failure, that nobody should really be behind.
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:
