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
@sxpert I'm talking about the false reporting about what happened at the UN, that even the UN's own records debunk.
@NoBeerToday@mastodon.social @Mary625@mstdn.social
@Mary625@mstdn.social the position posted to the UN website shows a concern for the innocent people of Gaza as well as Israel.
It's right there for anybody to see, if they care to actually look at what's actually happening instead of buying into the conspiracy theories and nonsense of special interests.
@msquebanh@mstdn.ca
@CosmicTrigger@kolektiva.social except it's factually not.
It is simply actually wrong to say so.
@Mary625@mstdn.social @tadbithuman
@anantagd but the UN record debunked that claim.
@sxpert and yet the US made statements against those interests.
Again, the clickbait articles really misinform people when we can debunk the articles by going straight to the UN to see that these conspiracy theories just don't hold water.
@NoBeerToday@mastodon.social @Mary625@mstdn.social
@Benhm3 but because it's not their place that doesn't matter.
It just serves to be clickbait for articles on internet and special interests trying to get people on their sides.
Keep in mind that the resolution was largely symbolic and criticized for not being particularly substantial.
So it wasn't so much a UN ceasefire bid as a wagging of the finger. They were never going to stop attacks with this particular vote.
@Benhm3 it's not the place of the Supreme Court to improve such a thing.
It's up to the democratic processes.
The role of the court is to point out democratic conclusions, whatever people we elect determined to be improvement.
@NoBeerToday@mastodon.social no the US went on record complaining that they brought forward their own proposals that took us stronger stance against the violence and other countries didn't care to take up the US proposals.
The US says it vetoed this resolution because it was too timid.
@StarkRG My president? You're making some assumptions there.
I honestly don't care about what Biden does or doesn't do. He can condemn whoever he wants or not condemn, those words aren't really going to do any good in the world. He's an idiot, yes, like most heads of states.
But at least we should try to get the facts right about what has happened in current events.
@Mary625@mstdn.social I gave you the link where the US was complaining that the resolution would not have substantially promoted peace.
If you don't want to read it, that's fine, but it's there for anyone to read if they want to.
@msquebanh@mstdn.ca
@anantagd firstly, the US position in the link went farther than what you are describing there.
Secondly, what you are describing there fits what I'm saying!
@NoBeerToday@mastodon.social The US went on the record saying that they brought forward stronger proposals but other countries didn't take them up.
@Mary625@mstdn.social
@Mary625@mstdn.social as far as I know they aren't public because they were part of the normal negotiation procedure that happens during the normal course of crafting resolutions like this at the UN.
I think sometimes they are made public, but because they are part of sensitive negotiation countries often want to keep the behind the scenes stuff private, because that's how they build trust among each other and are able to negotiate better in future efforts.
And so with this veto in place it sets the stage for a new round of negotiations where the US can push for more meaningful, maybe more aggressive efforts to end the conflict.
@msquebanh@mstdn.ca
@msquebanh@mstdn.ca Yeah, genocide apologist for pointing out that there were issues with this attempt to stop genocide?
No we're on the same side. And if you realize that you can work together to try to make the world a better place.
The US complained that this resolution would not have addressed the situation in a meaningful way. That means you and the US are on the same side, and now it's a matter of how to work together to actually make meaningful change.
It sounds like you have been misled as to what happened, and sadly, tragically, that means you are misperceiving an ally as an enemy.
@Mary625@mstdn.social
@Mary625@mstdn.social it's coming straight from the UN.
@tadbithuman Yeah the UN sometimes takes a little while to update their public information, but we at least have their immediate press summary of the positions.
https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15519.doc.htm
@Mary625@mstdn.social
@msquebanh@mstdn.ca according to the UN, the US says that they DID propose amendments, but they were ignored by the other countries.
@Mary625@mstdn.social
@tadbithuman The US said that its suggestions for the resolution were ignored.
So the other countries at the table stopped them.
@Mary625@mstdn.social
@Mary625@mstdn.social That's still backwards.
The US said this resolution was not going to work, so it is BECAUSE they wanted to save more people that they said the resolution needs to be more serious.
The US said that the international community needs serious responses, not rushed or symbolic responses, and called on the UN to propose something that would actually save lives.
Basically the US didn't think the resolution was strong enough against anybody engaging in the bloodshed, saying that under this resolution the bloodshed would have continued, so the UN needs to get serious.
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:
