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
@jumbanho but that's what the study did
@laurahelmuth but you're missing the point and directly contributing to the issue the piece is trying to address.
It's the difference between knowing masks work/don't work vs not having the data in.
Swinging the pendulum back and forth without data leads to the conclusion that masks don't work when it swings back.
The study ended up saying we don't know, and we could have simply reported that, to avoid the pendulum swing.
@YamakaziTaiga@mastodon.social you brought up what they said.
So yes, when the issue is what they said, we should believe what they said, if we want to know what they said.
No, Citizens United didn't say corporations are people. How do we know? By seeing what they said.
Lots of special interest groups lie about Citizens United and they need to be called out for lying to us.
@acdha why?
This is strictly partisan business, and secret balloting makes sense as it allows the people we've elected to make decisions to make better decisions.
They'll go on the record later, but game theory dictates that there are very good reasons, for the sake of good governance, to sometimes have secret ballots.
People do, indeed, die from the environmental conditions on Earth.
So we only try to survive here.
Not that the challenge of people living on another planet speaks to whether we should be launching rockets to support life here...
So it sounds like you're missing the reality coming and going: yes, the rockets improve life here AND people might rationally want to be living elsewhere.
@fredbrooker@witter.cz
@shonin@mastodon.world The problem is that there is so much other than climate change involved, even as companies use that as a convenient excuse that is politically acceptable to so many customers.
It's basically marketing.
@fredbrooker@witter.cz yeah and that is what I think @AlexSanterne is overlooking, the actual human factor here, where actual humans do value this even if he doesn't personally.
@fredbrooker@witter.cz
I mean, humanity is composed of humans, so benefits are judged by those humans.
Quite a lot of those. Humans value bitcoin and also value the rockets.
If you're asking what the value is, then you have to ask those humans, you can't just hand wave and talk about humanity, missing the trees for the forest.
@ambulocetus Oh wait, now I see! 🙂
@ambulocetus Why did you want to remind us of that?
volkris
boosted
No one is ever satisfied with dystopia. They always imagine that things are better over in dat topia.
@Stoat the problem is, focusing on places where it didn't happen might even emphasize the place is that it did happen, showing that it did in fact work.
@VedaDalsette we don't.
It's such a shame that he went political instead of just being a really funny comedian.
I really hold that against him.
@dangillmor I mean, they are a hack outfit spinning out sensationalized dramaticized manipulative content that a lot of people glom onto, as is the point of doing that.
So much of what they put out is so easy to debunk, but it confirms people's biases so I guess they digest it without question.
Yes, the outlet is pretty important. In the same way that Time's person of the year award recognizes influence without saying it's a good thing that they are so influential.
@Independent it's not wrong to ask, but it's also not wrong to answer no.
And again, are we to give up governing by people who know what they're talking about when they don't?
@acdha this is sensational and silly, though, focusing on process instead of result.
It's like saying sure I murdered that guy, but I'm not going to tell you why. No, it doesn't matter why, if I did murder the person then I can be held accountable for that murder.
Yes, political parties are going to keep their internal strategizing close to the breast, but that says nothing about whether they can act illegally. If districting is illegal, then it's illegal, regardless of why.
It's like these are journalists complaining that they can't write stories about drama that doesn't actually really matter. It's a bad sign for journalism, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the real world.
Illegal districting is illegal. This has nothing to do with that.
@mvario fortunately it's just not up to him, regardless of how many clicks Rolling Stone might get out of such a sensational headline.
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:
