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
It sounds like people might be drawing the wrong takeaway from the report that #Trump was recorded speaking to election canvassers.
On the surface there's nothing really new. He was public at the time criticizing election officials, calling for review, and asking that processes be put on hold while he conducted his challenges. This was no secret.
BUT, one thing that stuck out at me from the report is that he apparently offered to provide the officials with legal representation.
Trump critics might be caught off-guard by this nod that he proposed to follow legal processes.
This report might end up being marginally exculpatory, when so many are reacting as if it's a smoking smoking gun.
It's a case of people being aware just what they're putting on the table.
@melmc Yeah but more importantly it's another instance of a lot of press outfits putting out these sensationalized stories to get clicks and push agendas.
No, the US doesn't give presidents the option to act so unilaterally. Whether Trump knows that or not, the rest of us should keep that in mind.
@realTuckFrumper this doesn't seem like anything new of substance, though.
We know he was publicly critical of the process at the time, so it would have been weird if he didn't make that personal appeal as he disputed the count.
If anything the details, that he was offering to provide lawyers, make him sound more reasonable. But mainly, there doesn't seem to be anything new here.
@lauren Yeah my understanding is that public perception of the safety of mercury saw a pendulum swing from too little concern to too much concern. And a similar thing applies to public perception of everything from lead through radiation.
And I'm sure there is philosophical disagreements within different parts of society as to whether they should be aiming for accurate public regard or rather feeling that maybe it's okay to err on the side of making people extra cautious, even if that means a little fibbing.
@lauren I don't see what's new or important about that.
Trump was publicly pressing at the time, there was no secret here. We already heard it coming from Trump's mouth, and we had reporting about the canvasers deliberations at the time.
@lauren Trump was pretty public that he didn't think the canvassers should be certifying the results he was contesting, so this doesn't really seem like any groundbreaking news.
It would be weird if he DIDN'T make that request.
@mok0 That's not how the US system works, though.
The US doesn't give presidents the option of abolishing the electoral process.
And even if it did, which it doesn't, the 14th would no longer apply to that situation, so it's a mechanism that doesn't address a problem that's not real in the first place.
@georgetakei but it misses the next step where, no really, the ballot box is what counted.
That Trump tried hard to avoid the results of the ballot box, and failed, just emphasizes that the ballot box is the way to go.
@stinerman well, one element of importance is the ability to respond to it.
There's not much we can do about death and destruction in Gaza, but universities can engage with their students, and arguably have that within their mandates.
@DavidBHimself not to mention punishing their own fediverse users by blocking them from content.
@graf it's not my style
@DavidNielsen I mean as you said it sounds like your government welcomed the US military.
It's pretty striking to me that this is a a reporter reporting on what another reporter said, including what the other reporter said about other reporters, and... it reflects pretty poorly on #journalism really.
There's seem to be this unfortunate trend of reporters kind of making themselves the story instead of just reporting on the world, and this article takes it up to 11.
Living in a time when people have trouble finding factual accuracy coming out of the press, when people are losing so much faith in the press, this kind of thing really highlights one of the major problems in the stylistic evolution that's been playing out.
#Trump himself ends up being almost a side note in such a story covering reporters' opinions front and center.
@jeremy_pm It seems their stents is the opposite, though, they're not choosing to publish rather they are choosing not to censor.
It's the other way around.
@jeremy_pm based on the reporting around here, it seems that's not what they actually announced.
@etiennew Well I would generally frame it as political science.
Monetary policy at the Fed amounts to supervisors doing their best to please the public, negotiating between stakeholders that are both formal and informal, pretty much the same way that any congressperson also has to weigh the interests of different parties through the legislative process.
And it's like, a congressperson might consult the science of how a nuclear power plant would impact their district, but at the end of the day, subjective valuations are really what matter.
The Federal reserve has on staff a ton of economic experts that can speak more or less scientifically, but at the end of the day, they have to please the public that isn't necessarily so objective in their demands
@PerryM to be clear, Trump is such a dishonest person that just because he may be riiling up his supporters by saying something on some cable news station, it doesn't mean he's actually upset about it.
It's his schtick. That's how trolls work.
The comparison has given conservatives plenty of red meat to grouse about.
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:
