volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@kaffeeringe but farming the imposition out to one social institution or another doesn't change that it is still imposing the decision on you or me

Regardless of who or what is deciding on you or me, it's still deciding on you or me, imposing some other standards, imposing others' ideas of what we should and can't do with our bodies.
@arstechnica

@shepgo if you read the complaint, that's not at all what the complaint is about.

@Jamesboswell that's a convoluted theory when the alternative is that Media Matters is simply guilty of yet another sensationalized story, just as the legal filings lay out.

@shepgo

@SvenGeier that's like saying I didn't go to the store or I didn't go visit my family, but rather I was sent, on account of other people having built my car or flown the plane I rode to get there.

The point is the agency, the decision being made by the individuals who take the journey.

@arstechnica

@ChrisMayLA6 honestly when it comes to pensions I've become convinced that the real solution is to just pay workers today instead of offering a questionable promise of maybe paying them someday later.

If the employer is going to pay either way, then give the worker the pay today.

Everything else is speculative income.

@HistoPol I think the biggest problem with your composition is the nihilism it sets up.

Like, we can't afford more wars? Well that's a shame, because there will absolutely be more wars. And given that absolute reality I guess we might as well just all give up.

That's the problem with setting the argument at that level. It leads to impossible solutions and so it becomes a non-starter.

If it's realistic, then we might as well ignore it because we've already failed. If it's hyperbole then we might as well ignore it because it's hyperbole.

Neither option is very compelling, and that's a large reason why so many don't buy in.

@TheGuardian

@shepgo I guess that's a cute line but, we're just going to let Media Matters get away with misleading the public?

We don't actually care about it?

@ignova I don't think they ever do really justify that decision in the movies. They just do it for the plot.

I always thought it was a weak point of the movies.

@Basmitharts his strategy seems to be calling out his critics for false criticisms that misled the advertisers.

It's hard to see what else he might have done in that situation.

Media Matters has quite the history of sensationalized reporting and misleading audiences for the sake of clickbait, at best.

@squig@mastodon-uk.net he didn't stage a coup.

The temper tantrum was focused on the wrong branch of government for that, asking the Congress to act when a coup would have required engagement with the executive branch.

That story misunderstands fundamental civics of the US system.

@CommonMugwort well I think it's best understood in context of a lot of similar social things that it was rejecting.

It wasn't so much a rejection of ecosystem as a rejection of other human created institutions, themselves separate from ecosystem, things like cultures and governments that were themselves leaving ecosystem behind.

If that makes sense.

It was about transcending other institutions that had already transcended the material world.

@squig@mastodon-uk.net the important thing about the US system in this case is that we don't rely on losers of elections to admit their losses.

It's just not up to them.

They lost and they have no authority regardless of whether they want to admit it or not.

@hittitezombie according to the complaint Media Matters intentionally set up accounts with follow lists to engineer that situation.

And they still needed some luck since they reloaded over and over until they finally got the screenshot they wanted.

@thomasfuchs

@CardboardRobot consider that a billionaire has the resources not to really care about practical outcomes. They will be fine no matter what happens.

So sure, they might think, favor the autocrat. It might be interesting, and worst case scenario they will almost definitely personally be okay.

This is just one answer to your question I'm throwing out there. Another answer is that the billionaire might honestly believe the autocrat knows what's best and will be able to manage things effectively.

@davidpmaurer@mastodon.sdf.org I'm familiar with all of that and yet it doesn't change a single thing about what I said.

Every single congressperson is there because we voters empowered them to do those jobs, and cycle after cycle we largely re-elect them, apparently approving of the job they are doing.

Cycle after cycle, since far before 2020, we have been electing morons and we should probably stop doing that.

Or we can keep electing morons and continue to empower the hundreds of politicians who show such dysfunction, who set up the situation that you described above with crazy people having undue influence over the operation of Congress.

Not to mention, they tried to prevent us? What they? People we elected, people we actively gave power to.

It all comes back to voters, and voters voluntarily give up their control when they stop holding officials accountable and just keep re-electing the same morons.

@elizabethtasker perhaps I misunderstood your post.

There has been so much hate thrown at SpaceX for the last few days, based on misunderstandings of the development process, and it's been a shame.

@Catawu good thing that's not what I'm insisting then!

And neither is the argument that you presented above.

The argument you presented above is that there was no realistic threat, so all of your talk of knives and guns or anything else don't apply to this situation.

@Catawu and in this case the speech did not cause harm, which is the whole point.

Again, you don't have to like the speech, but the reasoning is pretty solid.

Without that harm that you mention, there's no substantial justification for silencing the speech.

@elizabethtasker consider that as a private company maybe SpaceX just isn't as concerned with PR and informing the public as the politicized agency is.

The Starship launch was a success because it met the goals of the launch. True, not everyone in the general public was up to speed about how the launch program was proceeding, so a lot of people aren't aware of what the goals were.

Maybe SpaceX is more interested in focusing on the engineering mission than public outreach. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

A whole lot of us who follow the development, though, understand why the launch is seen as a success because we knew ahead of time what their goals were and we watched them accomplish their goals.

@Catawu you seem to be saying that the argument is flawed merely because you don't personally prefer the outcome it leads to.

That doesn't mean the argument is flawed. It just means you don't like its implications. Which is fair, but your personal opinion doesn't override the logic.

The point here is that there is no violence. Asking about what to do after violence has commenced doesn't make sense when there is no violence to commence.

But yes, in the real world we are left always weighing risks as we go about our daily lives. That's the real world.