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
I'd say that's a pretty odd take on the cause of the US Civil War, not to mention the political history between declarations from state houses and the first shots fired.
@nus@mstdn.social
In a graph about how people identify, I think you're reaching a bit when complaining that it presented how people identify.
If the chart is about identification, then having ideals is a different matter, so you're complaining that the chart measured what it said instead of what, I suppose, you would have preferred to study.
Yeah, it's such a shame that so many rather loud voices refuse to see that value to the platform
Well, a vocal minority, hopefully.
Well that gets a bit circular: Americans who aren't informed about the protections will consider inadequate the protections that they're not informed of?
Anyway, really the general public has so little understanding of basic civics, things like the role of the Court in the US judicial system, that such polling isn't all that meaningful, ESPECIALLY considering that the Court was specifically set up to be independent of such political questions.
But there is evidence of self-policing.
The justices engage with each other to discuss these controversies, and it's even reported that the internal processes were followed even in these specific charges being circulated lately.
Well right but this sounds like it is talking about information that is being handed over voluntarily.
If it's not served it's not served.
It's so funny how people are casting opposition to a prosecutor as fascism.
Like yeah, it's fascism to NOT back the police and their activities against the public?
It's fascist to be critical of the police?
It's a bit foolish to promote such rhetoric when the statutes governing presidential elections gave Trump the runway that he used to challenge the election.
It's not about the fragility of the structure of democracy. It's about, well this is the structure of democracy. He was allowed to challenge, and he did, so there's just no meat there.
I mean, there was also something different happening in 2021 that is no longer going on...
Trump
Well I guess that gets into the specific laws being brought up.
Some laws do involve intention, and some laws don't..
But in short I'm not convinced there was an intent to do something wrong here. I generally believe Trump thought he had won, because he's an idiot, and it's kind of hard to prove that he wasn't acting on that intention without some smoking gun message where he said otherwise. And so far nobody has produced one, that I've seen.
Yep, so I would definitely get government out of selling both alcohol and lottery tickets.
I do agree about keeping government out of it, but same way I agree with keeping government out of selling liquor.
It's a vice and it's bad for people, but at the end of the day it's up to people to choose for themselves how to spend their lives and I would not tell people they can't gamble anymore than I would tell them they can't drink alcohol.
I'm opposed to government being involved with it positively, but I also wouldn't use government to impose my values on other people by taking it away from them.
Like I said, prohibition showed some pretty serious negative effects from trying to impose values back in the day.
I don't think it's just a press release, though, since it seems like it is the technical legal claim that the guy is making. It's not purely partisan, it is what the law specifies, right? They didn't just use those words to get the headline?
To be clear I don't know anything about this, and I honestly don't particularly care what they are doing down there, but it seems to me that this is not simply repeating propaganda, it sounds to me like this is the charge against the official so I don't know how to report this without reporting the charge being made.
What is factually wrong with the headline?
us politics
What you're getting wrong here is the against the will of the people part.
In the end that is the question that is being begged.
Well it's a vice, so banning it is about the same as alcohol prohibition.
And we saw how well that worked.
You're making that assertion, where is your reasoning to support it?
If I put something on a public website seems to me that an AI firm has every right to it because I am providing it to the public.
So what is the argument that they have no right to something being provided publicly?
Yes! Opposition to murder is indeed imposition of values on others, values that we can probably agree on!
And so that's the thing, I am happy to own my choice of saying that I will impose my opinion against murder on others. Why not own the imposition of values on other people's children? If that's the position you are taking, great! Own it!
It has nothing to do with libertarianism, again I disagree with a lot of libertarian stuff so I don't really see this as a libertarian issue, it's just a matter of civics, this is how we organize governments.
When you impose your personal values on other people, fine, just own it.
They literally cannot act autonomously. Their entire legal process is based on having orders from the president. Without presidential orders the DOJ has zero legal authority.
That is a core feature of the US government, a basic matter of civics.
Any law enforcement that acts without the authority of the president is going rogue and acting illegally.
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:
