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
@theothersimo and you don't think you hurt someone you kick out of the book club?
@TopKnot the thing is, the administration's application to the SCOTUS is actually fairly misleading. You can see how it changes the way it describes the legal status throughout the application.
In reality, there is no request for unlimited immunity. That's a dishonest part of the filing.
Instead, in short, Trump's team refers to the well-established notion that a person execution the legal actions of the office--and ONLY the legal actions of the office--can't be held personally accountable for those.
That's a limited view of immunity. But there's so much misreporting about what the filing actually says, so a lot of people are misinformed about it.
It is absolutely discriminatory, but we generally accept discriminatory action throughout societies.
You go to a restaurant and pay more for a steak than for a side of fries. The discriminates based on what you order, but we say that's ok.
Same here. Why WOULD we expect everyone to pay the same price when one level of service is more costly AND more valuable than another?
The Spanish speaker gets a more valuable service as the establishment gives personalized service. It's reasonable to charge the one getting the more valuable service for the cost of the service.
Yes, that's discrimination. No, it's not unreasonable.
@SocialistStan@mymastadon.link your screenname doesn't scream anarchist :)
But anyway, my personal opinions probably fall closer to yours, but so many don't get what's going on here.
I don't think they're so much infighting as working on different parts of the whole dumb puzzle that our elected officials have set up, trying to reconcile different parts of it.
Mass might doing one thing with prosecutorial discretion that might or might not be in conflict with their democratically elected legislators, but here SCOTUS is dealing with a fight between the federal executive branch and the past US Congress that passed these laws, egged on by the state of Texas and...
Well, you know it's all a huge mess, and anarchy might be better :)
But at the least I think we need to call out what's actually going on.
For now we're stuck with this government. We need to stop reelecting the idiots that put us in the situation, and we need to tell them not to blame the court for their own garbage.
@theothersimo but what IS it?
Not in comparison to something else; what IS tolerance to you?
@flexghost yup.
That's why so many of us were frustrated with all of the celebration behind the way the court case worked out: it wasn't going to end up the way so many expected.
This was always going to be the outcome of the way they pursued him. And the folks who lead the charge that went nowhere won't be held accountable for their failures, even as they enjoyed the spotlight way back when.
The general public will keep falling for these stunts, sadly, as there's all too little talk about how the US governmental systems actually function, and what levers are and aren't effective for accomplishing our goals.
@AnneTheWriter1 Mastodon is not AdFree.
Advertisers are free to broadcast ads into the system to show up into your feed.
That the algorithm (yes, there is an algorithm) may be purely chronological means there's even less to stop them from putting ads in your face.
@DoomsdaysCW these people don't seem to know what conflicts of interest are.
@Hunter no, that's wrong on all counts.
Firstly, The Texas Supreme Court said over and over in their ruling that they were **refusing** to play doctor, which was the entire point of their ruling, that the decision was in the hands of doctors, not the courts.
SCOTUS is considering a question of law, not medicine, to determine whether the executive branch broke the law, which has nothing to do with playing doctor.
Neither has anything to do with safety. Both have to do with courts *staying out of* playing doctor or other roles that they lack expertise in.
@bigzaphod what's weird about it?
Why would you expect such a link?
volkris
boosted
Remember, Threads/Meta is large enough to be under enormous regulatory scrutiny around the world. The last thing they're gonna want to do is let a bunch of uncontrolled posts feed into their network from piles of #Mastodon sites some of which are even widely blocked here due to their content and behavior, and all of which are by and large not currently regulated. They're not stupid at Meta. They don't want to be buried in CSAM and other crap. Think about it.
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.
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:
