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 can say whatever you want! Yay! Social media!
But yes, when Kinzinger failed to represent his constituents he was turning his back on democracy.
And it's worth calling him out on that, and holding him accountable for it.
@TwShiloh again, that's not a practical option because Democrats would refuse to negotiate.
I see zero chance that Democrats would allow Republicans to hold committee power in exchange for a Democrat speaker.
So long as Democrats wouldn't make that deal, Republicans wouldn't go that direction, and so it's just a non-starter.
Remember, the House is not controlled by just a Speaker, but under the rules of the House there's a whole set of offices that matter a whole lot.
So given those realities, moderates don't have the numbers to pick a moderate candidate. So long as Democrats are effectively blocking a moderate candidate, they're stuck with this.
I think it's important to support democracy, because I am again pro democracy, by calling people out when they do that.
If a representative wants to support democracy, they should. When a representative turns their back on democracy, well that's worth criticizing.
Who's spewing anti-democratic verbiage? Not me.
And apparently if you are reading anti-democratic messages into what I write, then I guess I'm not so transparent, as you are failing to see my position.
And also, just to point it out, judging positions based on identity is a pretty basic bit of fallacy, even if you aren't fighting straw men.
Here, for example. A vote of 208 to 11 is a pretty decisive rejection of the extremists in my book.
@TwShiloh sure, but that's a pretty tall order when the entire Democratic voting block is supporting the stranglehold.
Republicans voted overwhelmingly to marginalize the MAGA faction, but at the moment they just don't have the votes to overcome Democratic backing of the extremists.
Until there's a new election and we can replace some of these politicians, we are stuck with this unfortunate math.
@TwShiloh I don't think Jeffries would agree to the committee assignments that moderate Republicans would require for that vote.
That Jeffries voted to oust McCarthy and close the House shows that he's not particularly interested in working with moderate Republicans.
I imagine his own caucus would refuse to accept that arrangement, as they'd lose power they think they'd deserve.
@TwShiloh so long as 200+ Democrats are voting with the ideologues, the moderates just don't have the numbers to elect another option on their own.
To overcome the Democratic vote, the moderates have to give up their preference, unfortunately.
Well that's not true.
Republicans overwhelmingly opposed the nuts, but Democrats backed them and empowered them, leading to this moment.
Republicans tried to marginalize them, but Democrats propped them up against the overwhelming majority.
@TwShiloh well a huge question here is whether to keep the House closed or open it back up.
It's not so black and white: the moderate position is arguably to vote for Jordan so the US Congress can function.
@itwasntme223 it's not humiliation.
A lot of representatives simply want a better speaker than Jordan.
If anything it's humiliation for Jordan himself, but meh, everyone knows it's a political game and nothing personal.
@carnage4life well it's not that they're wrong since they know the ideas are risky.
When an enterprise fails it proves them right: they said it might fail, and it did.
If a VC never had a failure, that means they were probably passing up investments that they should have agreed to. It would mean they were too conservative in their investing, THAT would mean they were wrong.
I always hate to see when someone in a position like Dean has such misguided opinions, but I think it's especially important to call those out when they're coming from people in positions of power.
Your wishes for my voice to be silenced or noted.
That's how democracy works though. It's all about recognizing people's opinions, even the antisocial ones.
@Nonilex yeah but it was working across the aisle that got us in this position in the first place as the House was shut down with votes from both Republicans and Democrats.
So you know, bipartisan consensus isn't always for the best.
@lauren Well what would you have preferred Google to do?
What system could they have implemented that would have been better?
Recognize that democracy reflects the will of the people, whether or not we actually personally like what that will is.
There's no judgment there. I'm personally pro-democracy even as I recognize the fact that often enough people are not going to vote the way I would prefer.
@marynelson8 no, Speakers of the House aren't in charge of certifying elections.
I don't know where that idea is coming from, but I see a lot of people repeating it today.
@dancinyogi Yep.
So hold accountable those who set this up. Check to see how your representative voted below.
The Speaker of the House doesn't get to decide whether to allow an election certification process.
That's just not how the presidential election process works.
@dancinyogi
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:
