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
@folduptoys That's like crediting a milling machine for milling a nice groove in a piece of stainless steel.
No, there was a human involved. The AI was merely a tool that the human used.
It's not the AI creating art. It's the human using the AI to create art.
@aral no, that's not what a war crime is
@grrlscientist@mstdn.social Well, it's because the Senate doesn't have time to waste time on nutty conspiracy theories.
It's part of the checks and balances in the US government.
Those sensationalized clickbait news reports don't get to drive the congress. They have more important things to do.
@junesim63 this is stupid.
I mean, Trump is stupid, but this is stupid too.
Let's be clear that a president is not a dictator, and the president doesn't get to choose whether or not he is a dictator. Our system does not leave that up to the person holding office.
It's really stupid that Trump is saying he is retribution, but it doesn't actually matter that much. No matter what he might want to do, he would be in an office that has checks on his authority specifically to prevent him from being retribution, whatever that means.
The thing is, Trump wants us to react to this kind of BS. That's his whole brand, as he is a troll.
If only we would ignore him he would go away.
@Vincarsi but it's not their rules. A rental agreement represents the rules agreed to by both parties, including the tenants.
The tenant signs up for the conditions under which they might get kicked out.
These are the tenants rules as much as the landlords.
@bigheadtales The thing is, Supreme Court opinions are public. We can see the justices getting together, checking each other, writing down the reasoning of their rulings.
It's not difficult to imagine that these accusations of bribery are bunk when we can look at the rollings for ourselves and see that there's no bribery involved in the reasoning.
The Supreme Court is not a legislature. Their rulings are not arbitrary. They're not subject to being skewed by money.
2 + 2 = 4 regardless of the personal transactions of the people doing that math.
@trans_caracal again, I would suggest that you see more of the world, expand your experiences.
No, I'm not a liar. I can bring references for anything I say.
If you think what I'm saying is false, that just really reflects that you haven't seen enough of the world, that you're view is very constrained to whatever echo chambers you have engaged in.
Broaden your world view! Question your authorities! There's a big wide world out there.
@magitweeter Well right, because it sounds like you are using a non-standard definition of wealth, so I ask what you mean when you use that term.
The thing is, a landlord cannot demand a rental agreement. They can only offer an agreement. If a potential renter doesn't like the agreement, they can walk away.
And that happens every single day.
So the landlord offers to give away control of their property in a rental agreement, and if you really want to focus on rental agreements then you are focusing on the ways in which "wealthy" people give away the thing that you consider core to being "wealthy."
If wealth is about control of property, then renting out property is 100% an example of a wealthy person giving up property rights to other people.
Even in that reduced model of wealth, you see that our culture promotes redistribution of wealth, the opposite of hoarding of wealth.
@magitweeter Right, and in the real world that's not how things work as property owners give up the power to their claims, handing power over to tenants through rental agreements.
And again, let me repeat for the 100th time, I don't know why you're obsessed with this corner of the world, but even this corner of the world that you are choosing doesn't support your case.
@magitweeter The landlord experiences a negative opportunity cost if the property goes vacant.
That's not even to mention the way property degrades when there's no one around to take care of it.
Tenancy grants the occupant the power to occupy the property, which is EXACTLY a form of the landlord giving up power to control occupation. You are flat out talking about the opposite of hoarding.
So even ignoring all of the other features of common virtual agreements, the landlord gives up no power... except for the extremely substantial power over the comings and goings of the tenant.
And that's the problem. To support your model of how this works, you have to turn a blind eye to the most important factors of the equation.
Your model is just not in line with reality of how the real world works.
@magitweeter I think the original proposition was that wealthy people hoard wealth, so the comparison would be between what happens without the rental agreement versus with the rental agreement.
Because apparently we are reducing wealth to renting for some reason.
So when wealthy people, defined as owning property for some reason, offer to rent their property to a tenant, they are giving up some of their control of the property.
If you want to set up the comparison, it is unrented versus rented, with the rental offer being the opposite of hoarding, giving up that control over the property.
So basically, the rental of property is exactly an example of how wealthy people don't hoard in modern societies, if you really want to frame it that way for some reason.
@CapitalB and yet that doesn't disclose the possibility that the country will fail.
Just because an eventuality is bad doesn't mean it won't happen.
It's even more reason to recognize that truth and work hard to make sure it doesn't happen. Even more reason to recognize the interface between institutions and humans because the worst case scenarios are pretty darn bad.
@magitweeter That's correct, and the tenant also can't grow wings and fly around the room. So what?
The issue of whether the wealthy person is hoarding wealth is resolved by the wealthy person, apparently, in this context that you seem obsessed with, giving up their power in exchange for rent, regardless of whether the renter has absolute dominion over the property and all of God's creatures.
For whatever reason you seem to want to reduce the whole concept of wealth into landlord agreements, which to me is pretty dumb but whatever, but even at that reductionist point we see the opposite of hoarding as the landlord gives up power in exchange for rent, even if the renter doesn't have god-like authority over the world, which seems to be what you're aiming for, for some reason.
Yes, it's true that the renter only gets to live there and doesn't have the authority to resell the property for profit. No, that doesn't mean the smelly wealthy owner hasn't given up power through the rental agreement.
@magitweeter again, I was assuming that you were not living in some anarchocapitalist hellscape
If the rental agreement is uninforceable then all bets are off and you are talking about a different reality than I am.
At that point you're not so much talking about a renter as a squatter, so I'm assuming here that the rental agreement would be enforceable.
If you're talking about an agreement that's not legal then that's a completely different matter, one that's certainly divorced from modern societies.
@CapitalB I would say that the focus on countries really overlooks the more important factor of individuals, making sure that people are able to get honest information if they care about the situation.
The focus on countries instead of people promotes nationalism that all too often buys into the propaganda. Either put out by or supporting those countries.
@AlisonW I would love to talk about those things! Since all of them have been really mischaracterized in popular media.
But I don't know what you think happened so I can't really address the myths behind them unless you lay out what you have heard.
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:
