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
Yep. Welcome to #fediverse.
It's a rather homogeneous, intolerant place, where the choir is quite happy to be preached to, and gets kind of annoyed at those who aren't convinced by the sermons.
@SocialistStan@mymastadon.link it's not ignoring the blowhards at SCOTUS since they're not the ones involved.
It's ignoring the laws passed by our elected representatives plus the bungling of the elected presidential administration.
It took two branches of government to screw this one up, and both are, sadly, going to escape accountability as the courts are cited as scapegoat.
@benbloodworth Why not?
If it costs them extra to provide, but it gives some users additional value, it seems plenty reasonable to charge extra to the ones that derive that additional value for the additional cost to provide it.
@aeinstein@infosec.exchange it seemed to work from here. No error. @J12t@social.coop
@mastodonmigration but that's not how #ActivityPub works.
With the federated, instance-based design of this platform nobody like #Threads can stop people from commenting, other than stopping their own users from participating.
Basically Threads would be putting content into the system for free that we'd all be able to see and comment on, but Threads wouldn't provide its own users with the ability to see or interact with the comments.
Yes, we would absolutely be able to comment because for better or worse that's how the underlying protocol works.
I've long suspected that conservatives were resting their accusations against Joe #Biden on evidence that was completely manufactured since, as far as I could tell, over these years far too few had taken it seriously enough to look into it and actually see if it wasn't completely counterfeit.
Today #HunterBiden didn't do himself any favors in my eyes by addressing the press with a statement that confirmed that evidence that his attackers had been throwing around were indeed legitimate.
All of these are numbskulls who we shouldn't let anywhere near power.
@theothersimo I've noticed that you spend a lot of time rejecting a common definition, but not really providing your own.
How do YOU define tolerance?
Indeed!
Let's judge each on their own merits which is exactly why I went out of my way, and out of my aesthetic, to explicitly say I wasn't equating the two.
I kind of don't know why you'd respond with this after that.
Firstly, having kept up for administrative activities for all these administrations, I always said most needed to be impeached.
They got away with ignoring laws because they felt safe from impeachment. Making this threat real is probably for the best.
But secondly, both Trump and Biden were impeached or face impeachment because they did (at least) sketchy stuff.
If future presidents knock that off it's reasonable to believe they won't be impeached.
These two are just awful. I'm not saying equally awful, mind you, but each awful in their own way.
It's the old line: "The nice thing about standards is there are so many to choose from."
So practically it's more that ActivityPub has filed its standard of design at the w3c, but that's different from having diverse social media outfits standardize on that.
The Bluesky standard might just be better, once it matures and is standardized.
Well, keep in mind that #fediverse is more of the communication tech than the user experience, and it's perfectly possible to build solid, persistence-of-topics systems on top of it.
I would say that many of the ways that it's currently being used do amount to the many voiced screaming into the void that you describe, as so many just want to replicate #Twitter's void screaming over here.
I hope that better applications are built and mature in fediverse as other users ask for better experiences.
We shall see.
@theothersimo but you're the one proposing intolerance here and I'm saying we should indulge your intolerance for the sake of your higher goal!
You refuse to tolerate people who call to question basic human dignity, and that sounds fine to me. I'm willing to indulge your intolerance because it seems like it's on a solid ethical ground.
Tolerance may not be a virtue, and that's fine, let's say that and emphasize that it's why you're not putting tolerance above basic human decency.
It's why you're rejecting tolerance, and that's fine. But you undermine your own cause when clinging to tolerance that you're simultaneously rejecting.
@theothersimo yep, so proudly throw tolerance in the fire because being intolerant of Steve is more important than promoting tolerance.
Why claim to be tolerant when tolerance would have you tolerate such a person in your midst?
Forget tolerance. Kick Steve to the curb!
@Drdind but that's not what the ruling said or did.
The problem is that so many people sat dumbfounded because their news sources misinformed them about what was going on, painting an upsetting picture that didn't really make sense, because it wasn't an accurate representation of current events.
The SCOTUS ruling was mainly that a lower court erred in its interference in the election process. It is, after all, a court of appeals in this sort of case, and was never asked whether to hand the presidency to anyone.
With accurate framing the ruling makes much more sense and would have left fewer people dumbfounded.
@theothersimo again I repeat, it's fine if this is your solution or the best solution, but in that case you should proudly own it.
Proudly say you're putting basic human dignity over tolerance, that tolerance is simply not as important as shaping a better society.
That just emphasizes how important the task is to you.
Why not?
@Nonilex the problem is that this isn't really about abortion at all, but about the administration botching a legally proscribed process.
The real question before the Court here is whether the Biden administration gets to ignore the law and sanction sale of a drug.
Once again Biden has made a mess of things and looks to others to clean things up, and he won't be held accountable for it.
The #Texas #abortion case has been badly misreported, with reporters once again saying the exact opposite of what was in a ruling.
Texas's law does not prevent abortion in the case as it's been described, so it was always strange to hear that it was being blocked.
Well, the court spelled this out in its ruling, over and over in fact, trying to say it nine different ways so that there is no mistaking it. But the press misframed it nonetheless.
For example:
> "A pregnant woman does not need a court order to have a lifesaving abortion in Texas. Our ruling today does not block a life saving abortion in this very case if a physician determines that one is needed under the appropriate legal standard, using reasonable medical judgment."
@theothersimo if that's your goal of tolerance then it's the wrong tool for the job.
It's like saying the goal of riding this bike is to get across the country as quickly as possible. That may indeed be your goal, but you should consider using a car or a plane instead, as the bike isn't so great at traveling quickly.
Allowing fascists to organize and such is tolerant. One may be understandably opposed to those things, but that's the reason to own intolerance.
YES! Throw tolerance in the fire! It's not what you're really after, so why insist on claiming to be tolerant here?
@leswarden The US and Israeli systems are so different in their designs that the two situations aren't really comparable.
And in fact that was part of Netanyahu's complaint, as he pushed for a court that was a bit more law based in the absence of a strong constitutional framework.
The US constitutional framework, and its defining of the role of the SCOTUS, is exactly the distinguishing factor at the heart of the whole argument, and the one involving Trump as well.
@leswarden The problem is, since the Supreme Court is a body of law it can't let considerations like that influence its rulings.
Anyway, the more important point is that it really doesn't matter if Trump wants to be a dictator. The US system simply doesn't give presidents that option.
He can want it all he wants, but it says useful as wanting to flap your arms and fly around the room.
It's just a moot point.
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:
