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
@magitweeter as you said, the tenant gets the ability to accept the terms as written by the landlord or to refuse them.
The landlord doesn't have the ability to set terms for other people.
In this case, the other people have the ability to accept the terms or not.
At this point you are so far away from the topic of wealthy people hoarding. Now you're down to arguing about the details of contractual negotiations, and really, I think that shows just how tenuous the original argument was.
Yeah, wealthy people hoard things! How do you know? Because a tenant has the ability to accept the offer made by a landlord.
I think it's just really striking how far from the original argument you're going now.
Far from hoarding wealth, you're talking about whether a landlord is going to fix a dryer when it breaks.
@DrALJONES if the hospital is being used as a military base, as claimed, it's not a war crime to attack it.
This is a really important point to discourage militaries from using places like hospitals as military installations, as that endangeres patients, as we are seeing right now.
It's not a deliberate war crime if the accusations are true.
@magitweeter I don't know what you're talking about.
Most rental agreements involve tenants paying rent in exchange for the landlord giving up his ability to do things like evicting them.
@resuna this has nothing to do with any other country, as other countries have different voting systems and different cultures and different representative systems. So comparing to another country is apples and oranges. There's no point to it.
But, ABSOLUTELY the two party system allows people to choose the lesser of two evils. The problem is that having more parties than that undermines that ability.
Given the US propensity for first past the post voting, additional parties mean that voters are disempowered from voting for the lesser of two evils. At that point, they're likely to vote for the greatest of three evils.
And that's a step backwards.
Again, the reason we have two parties is to solve the problem of the voting system, to avoid wasted ballots.
Voters organize themselves into two parties because the voting system sucks. With more than two parties, we still have the sucky voting system, but we no longer can mitigate its problems.
Of course, this only matters if you care about voters.
If you only care about parties then ok.
@magitweeter but I think that ends up being theory that runs into a brick wall of reality.
The landlord has to relinquish control of the property when renting it to a person. When I sign a rental agreement, the landlord agrees that I get control as per the agreement.
I get to walk in and out of the front door as I wish, cook food, sleep, do all of those things as per the agreement that the landlord has signed on to.
So I don't think it's realistic to frame this as the landlord being in control when the whole realistic situation. Here is the landlord giving up control.
And this is so core to what I'm trying to say: you talk about hoarding wealth when in reality our societies encourage people to give up wealth.
If you want to define wealth as something like control, I think that's unusual way to define it, but even then, when we look at the real world we see the opposite of hoarding, we see landlords giving up their control to their tenants.
@marqle well BlueSky is just a fundamentally different platform that doesn't use the same model as ActivityPub with its focus on instances above all, so it's really apples and oranges.
It's like saying this electric car isn't going to run on gasoline. They're just fundamentally different.
It might be that the BlueSky system is better. We will see once it is more finalized.
@trans_caracal have you never heard that phrase used as an explicit demand that Jews be killed?
Because I sure have.
Your statement comes across as akin to those saying swastikas don't necessarily represent bad things because the symbol predated certain bad things.
Yes, maybe there are multiple ways to interpret the phrase, but just keep in mind that the phrase has represented explicit genocidal hate speech quite often.
@j2kun I don't know if this is a helpful answer, but honestly: It depends on the controller.
Firstly, there are two completely different ways of implementing PID, one kind of looks backwards and one kind of looks forwards, and they give very different results.
That's not even getting into the details of the implementations, the quirks of each system.
So I know I'm ducking your question in a way, but it really does come down to, your system probably operates in a way completely different from so many other systems, so there is no standard answer to a question like this.
@Helderweb the justification is to try and prevent the deaths of more children.
There are no good solutions to this problem. There are only bad solutions, and the need to choose between bad options.
Tragically, the way the deck has been stacked to this point, people will die. Children will die. There is absolutely no way to avoid it.
@gratefuldread the article seems to actually support Cotton's case, laying out the grounds for his call for asking questions about the incident.
Even the answers that the article provides highlights that there was substance to his concerns.
@cspcypher I think the lesson isn't so much about how a quality is contested as it's about how people talk past each other when they use the same terminology to refer to completely different things.
It's a lesson in communication.
@MisuseCase I've been bludgined by factual reporting and reality.
It really stinks.
But this is the world we live in.
@gknauss it's pretty naive to describe eliminating poverty as simple.
@JoParkerBear Good to see Hamas run ministry admitting to the results of Hamas policies.
@HopelessDemigod Yeah, so I think that really helps to highlight the issue here, that you don't have money in the bank, rather you have a bank agreeing to pay you money, and if the bank fails then you have an insurance policy agreeing to pay you money.
I don't think this is splitting hairs. I think it is actually very important for people to realize that a deposit in the bank is a relinquishment of ownership of that money. It's important for a few reasons, ranging from the lack of accessibility to money that is no longer theirs through the social obligation of diverting tax resources to pay those insurance obligations.
@magitweeter I think that if you can't define wealthy then it's kind of silly to be talking about it.
It kind of hand waves away all of the substantial meaning of the term, and whatever point a person might be trying to make into abstract definitions that rely on someone else to make.
My entire point is to focus on the substantial aspects of wealth here. And your reply sounds like you are ducking that, setting aside the substantial aspects, and just floating in the hand waving abstraction.
These are real people's lives that are impacted. I want to talk about the real people, the real ways that are institutions function. I'm not so much interested in your intuition.
I actually don't think the topic of wealth requires any arguments to authority. It's more, what do YOU mean when you talk about wealth.
When we are talking about hoarding of wealth, well what do WE mean by that. What substantial resource do you think is being hoarded.
In the common usage, people do tend to measure wealth in dollar figures, or some other currency figures. It seems like you are saying you don't do that, and that's fine.
So in the end the question comes down to, what are you talking about?🙂
@forteller to be clear about what I'm saying, programs like peertube don't actually stream video over Fediverse. Instead, they make Fediverse posts that link to external services.
No different from linking a YouTube video in a post.
(As far as I am aware. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)
This is no minor difference because it has huge implications for the scalability of the platform and the amount of resources that it takes to run an instance.
@DemDifference Oh I'm sorry I should have said 9 data points.
Which is definitely not a chart of 35 years.
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:
