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
You're missing that that entitlement was part of the objection process.
You're recognizing the legitimacy of the process but complaining about an element of the process.
That's what you're missing here.
You didn't realize that the VP can't do anything involving the 25th on his own...
I think you are looking at it backwards, though.
Each UI participating in Fediverse can do its own thing. Each UI does what it needs to do for its users and its goals regardless of anything else.
So if one client does things different from another that doesn't create a rift that is simply the way this works, with different clients displaying things differently according to different goals.
It's not a rift. It is an entirely expected difference of application.
Did you read the indictment for yourself? Because it does not support your position.
You're still falling into the circular argument.
You say the states certified the legit electors, but the exact question was whether the states had legitimately certified electors.
You're still assuming the answer to the very question that was being raised through this legal process, as the law set out, and had we all focused on the legal process this would largely be a non-issue.
But instead we allowed everybody to assume the answer instead of letting the legal process play out, which allowed a whole lot of people to point out the break from the legal process, and fed into this whole chaotic situation.
In short, your line of rhetoric right here plays into Trump's hands. It would be for better if we simply applied the law instead of engaging in the circular arguments that just fueled his rhetoric.
I really believe the guy would not be running again if we had simply applied the law.
I don't know about YouTube and TV but as I listen to mainstream conservatives reading their articles online and listening to them on the radio they absolutely decry the guy's faults.
Radio might be the best example because they take a lot of callers from across the country who all talk about how the guy is so imperfect even if they support him.
So yeah I think it sounds like you are only seeing a small sample in the YouTube and TV that you are watching.
Just goes to show, maybe don't treat anything Trump says as particularly reliable or intelligent or noteworthy?
Like, I really don't give a shit how Trump treats anybody. Why would anybody care how that moron treats anybody? Unless you're actually having dinner with him or something, which why?, but skipping right past that, stop giving a shit about what some moron thinks about things, is my opinion.
I don't really care whether Trump treats somebody as Satan or an angel or a toilet. It just really doesn't matter because he is not somebody to be so obsessed with.
I mean, do you have any particular argument to make your case?
Because right now it sounds like you are telling people what to believe without any evidence at all to support them.
Frankly, the Koch thing was always an overstated thing that certain media outlets used to generate headlines and attract clicks and, sadly, sort of mislead their readers.
This is not so much interesting turning on Kochs as it is they were never ever actually such allies as had been betrayed in the media, and it is a very very good reason that we need to stop listening to such media outlets that are manipulating us with these kind of dramatic stories.
In a certain way I think you have it backwards.
ActivityPub provides this metadata that Mastodon is currently ignoring and its user experience.
So in a way it's not becoming incompatible but rather becoming more compatible, as it would be doing a better job of presenting the Fediverse stream information to its users.
But really, I don't think any of that matters, I just think Mastodon should have the better experience for its users regardless of anything else, so when you talk about being incompatible, I'm okay with that, so long as it is being the best for its users and let other apps catch up if they need to.
But that's not what happened in this case.
If you want to go into an analogy about taxes, in this case it would be a dispute over how much income is taxable under the law, and filing the appropriate forms to dispute the IRS claim that a whole bunch of your charitable contributions were actually taxable when by law they were not.
Again, there's a whole lot of begging of questions here.
Trump was advised to follow the law that allowed him to challenge election results, and he's being harangued for the fact that he did so.
Just saying that he was wrong doesn't change that he was abiding by the law that allowed him to challenge results to double check to affirm the rights of voters, to make sure that the voting system operated correctly.
That's odd. Care to give some examples?
If they used a valid, if obscure, procedure, then it wasn't falsely declaring anything.
If that's the procedure, that's the procedure, no matter how obscure it may be, and we may very well need to elect better legislators who will fix the procedure, if it's a bad one.
These are the rules of the game. If the rules are bad, then fix them. But it's folly to fault people for using the rules of the game, no matter how bad they may be, to win the game.
We set this system up. Trump not only tried to use the system, but because he's an utter idiot he screwed up his own attempt to use the system. He lost. But now we're trying to yell at him for using the rules that we made instead of fixing the rules?
It's all so chaotic and backwards and undemocratic.
And again, the process was to determine who are and aren't legit electors!
You're assuming the end of the process that is itself set up specifically to determine who is and isn't legit.
It's somewhat akin to charging a guy with criminal activity for having claimed that he was innocent before a trial.
We have a process for sorting disputes out, and the act of engaging that process is legally sanctioned. it's silly to skip to the end and proclaim that a person engaging that legal process is doing something illegal by engaging the law.
@georgetakei
Wow, so just some feedback, realize that the way you're posting, you seriously come across as having something of a zealot affection for electric vehicles for some reason.
I don't know what your intentions are, but it's offputting and likely running counter to what you want to accomplish.
But that stance begs the exact question that the objection process exists to adjudicate.
The objection process existed. Trump used it, poorly, because he is a moron.
But regardless, the objection process existed, and we'd be much better off to recognize that and call the guy out on having failed honestly instead of promoting his claims by revoking his access to the reasonable adjudication process.
@georgetakei
Believe it or not, sometimes cars malfunction, and the complexity of a modern #EV system vs a dumb measurement of gas in the tank does introduce so many new failure modes.
So, I don't particularly care whether you doubt or not. No skin off my back either way.
It is funny, though, that you're telling people to stop believing nonsense in the media, and now it sounds like you're telling people to also ignore the nonsense that they experienced for themselves.
That's real crisis of faith territory at that point.
Yes, #ElectricVehicles can break too.
Except.... it didn't.
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:
