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
@michael_martinez it's worth noting, for anybody who isn't aware, that a significant moment in Pence's campaign was when he went on a national conservative radio program and very reasonably declined to say he would pardon Trump no matter what if he was elected, and the hosts of the program denounced him in fiery words.
I think it's notable for a few reasons, not the least to capture the media environment that these candidates exist in.
Pence was being fairly reasonable and rational saying that he was open to considering a pardon, but he wanted to see what the legal processes turned up with, but that measured response was just unacceptable to these media figures.
To be clear, a radio show does not capture the entire conservative voting bloc, but it does describe what conservative candidates are going to be thinking about as they choose their words.
@unchartedworlds no, I am thinking about SO many cases where some mass media figure was interviewing some expert, and the expert didn't address the points that the figure was bringing to the table, allowing the figure to both present the misunderstanding to their audience, but worse, continue to promote the misunderstanding and even double down on it in the future.
I'm especially frustrated from seeing this in contexts involving COVID these days. It's an ongoing issue, and the questions that were left unanswered way back when are now snowballing.
It seems like so many public officials may have been technically skilled but really failed in the part of their jobs that involved engaging with the public to explain what's happening.
The way I see it, I consider it tragic the missed opportunities to engage with the public through such mass communication channels.
@mnutty Well no, since the law provides for prosecutorial discretion that would let Trump or anybody else go free even if they are guilty, which it's a tall order to say Trump is.
As per the law Donald Trump does not have to be convicted.
It goes against the law to say that his conviction is required.
Again, it's another thing you have backwards.
@msaunders and there is the additional issue of the inefficiency of AP.
The way it's designed, it scales by number of instances, not by number of users, and we've already seen a whole lot of complaints about the resource consumption. It involves as it scales.
So another criticism of the platform is that the more we promote one user instances, the more resources it's going to consume.
So even that is not a particularly good path to decentralization.
@pre but it's also the functional equivalent of not spending any money or resources or PR strategy to BE blocked.
I get what you're saying and you do have a point, but I'm picturing how things go in the actual board meeting and imagining that the mid-level managers would rather not be seen spending money on a platform where they might be so disrespected, if you want to call it that, even if it means less exposure in the end.
Yeah, I would phrase your point as saying you can't win if you don't play. But I think a lot of these managers would rather not play and save face, even if that means less winning.
@mnutty Oh the platform presents it to me. I don't search it out.
But a lot of people get the same things backwards because a lot of people are getting their information from the same misleading sources, so I think it's worth countering those narratives.
Well, as worthy as anything can be on social media.
Are you saying Trump is in office, he wasn't prevented from returning to office?
@maria how about abortion?
@siderea I don't think you've proven your point here, you've just made an assertion out of nowhere.
The precautionary principle as you have stated, it seems completely logical and rational, even if you simply, without argument, declare otherwise.
@mikej exactly!
So there was plenty of bad evidence, and it needed to be called out as bad, not just ignored.
It was a huge problem, and it remains a huge problem, that all of this evidence is just ignored as not existing at all instead of being properly debunked and refuted.
So many people continue to believe this evidence today because so many in the mainstream never dealt with it, and that's a huge problem.
@PricklyPam but that's not how statistics work.
More often the victim than perpetrator leaves a ton of room for any individual case being the perpetrator.
So yes, any individual case is perfectly open to being blamed on mental illness.
And guns don't have agency, so it's silly to blame them anyway.
@jackiegardina remember that the Supreme Court involvement in 2000 was to knock down a lower court that improperly got involved.
Courts don't get involved all the time. So often what people are really complaining about is courts hearing a case and saying, hey, we don't have any jurisdiction here.
That's largely what happened once Trump started complaining to them.
@tab2space I mean thanks for your contribution. My eye rolling will help spread the moisture evenly.
@ErrataRob
@WesternInfidels Oh I've known a lot of those people personally. Well I know both people who believe in the election steal and I know people who are literal flat earthers. (Although that Venn diagram doesn't really overlap in my personal experience).
And from what I've seen, the attitude doesn't vanish if the winter has an R. They just are falling for BS from the uncontested claims that they are receiving.
So in my experience the key is to systematically sit down and go through the claims that they are receiving from BS sources to debunk them one by one, as annoying as that may feel.
But yeah, I go out of my comfort zone to interact with these people so I know a little more about how they operate than a lot of people here seem to.
@ErrataRob YES exactly!
@quinn Why not both?
My ego can stand being so embarrassed. But yes he is being cagey.
What are you getting at with this post? shouldn't be a controversial or difficult question.
@MattFerrel not at all!
I'm one of those people who say that if you vote a certain way, you should be blamed for the results of your votes.
@mnutty again, you have your facts backwards.
If anything Jan 6th just emphasized that it doesn't matter what politicians think, the law prevails, and no matter how much someone like Trump might dislike it, we don't let them decide whether or not the law will prevail.
It's not up to a criminal as to whether the law prevails. It does.
@peltast I mean there have been presentations with hours and hours of evidence, again bad evidence, tons of court filings with evidence, again bad evidence, conversations among friends about the evidence, yes bad evidence, and on and on.
Just off the top of my head I can point to statistical evidence (based on misunderstanding of statistics) and evidence of rich people funding get out the vote efforts to skew the election (which is legal in part of the game).
So there is an endless amount of garbage evidence. We need to call the evidence out as being garbage, not deny that it exists, because that way the folks falling for it don't get told that it's garbage and end up continuing to accept it at face value.
@edyoung sadly, tragically, part of the issue is how people sort of accelerate as they fall down those rabbit holes, so it's really important to reach them early, to nip the claims off at the bud.
I never think people in general are unreachable (even though some individuals absolutely are) but the longer you wait to start engaging with them and debunking things they are falling for, the harder it is to arrest their fall.
These days I'm especially frustrated with the things people are spouting about COVID, and I sure do wish we had addressed some factual claims about vaccines and stuff even half a year ago when the misunderstandings were just beginning to really snowball.
And it was something I watched in real time, in frustration, because it's not like I have the microphone that, say, a national journalist does to answer questions being brought up but not addressed.
Anyway, it's my theme here that anyone is free to give up and I understand that choice. It's not the one I make, but I respect other people who just give up on the other side and don't bother addressing them.
@thomas_decker rulings are settled. The law is not. Huge difference.
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:
