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
No, no Constitutional crisis here.
Well first, let's call out the headline for being completely, and utterly, false.
#SCOTUS merely vacated an order preventing the US from interfering in TX fencing.
That doesn't mean the US has to interfere, or that TX can't continue its fencing.
And, should Texas try to physically clash with US agents, there are plenty of legal--constitutional--avenues to address such a conflict.
This article is sensational and does a disservice to the public.
@bblaze@iceshrimp.social well, not necessarily clickbait or gaslighting but also, perhaps, pushing an agenda while relying on simple ignorance of what has happened here.
@Ronial so you wouldn't mind if it was, in your words, "cryptocurrencies for the rich people"?
That wasn't an attack, just some neutral description you happened to be wrong about, but that didn't factor into your opinion?
To be clear, you're not against Bitcoin, but against this false version of how Bitcoin works.
But I think it's funny that you seem to be distancing yourself from a position that it's a problem that it might be "for the rich".
@nurglerider
@noyes **YUP!**
And folks perceiving this as having been a uniquely unparalleled breach of ethics is exactly why so many are so pissed off about it, demanding investigations, and demanding accountability for what they're seeing as exactly such a monumental breach of all sorts of norms, laws, expectations, and all the rest.
@73ms ha, I half agree, but I think you skated past the important point:
This is caused by us having laws *both created and enforced by individuals that we elected and continue to elect*.
I DO want to zero in on "this is caused by us having laws" because that's the key to improving things.
We keep reelecting the people who promote that, and the solution is for us to stop doing that.
That we have laws is the problem. That we elect better people is the solution.
So it's vital to realize that this is all up to the population in the end.
Right, you shouldn't have to explain this to me because you shouldn't have been so factually misinformed in the first place.
You SHOULD know better if this is a topic that's interesting to you.
Sadly, it sounds like you have been misinformed, so here we are.
I'm referring to whatever conspiracy you want to be promoting today.
I don't figure you're going to be consistent about buying into any particular one.
@Ronial I like how you kept going back to the rich in the comment you made about not being obsessed with the rich.
You do realize that poor people can receive value from something that has absolutely nothing to do with dreaming of being rich, right?
Perhaps you're projecting as your obsession with the rich has you constantly having such dreams, without realizing that the rest of us don't share the obsession.
Some of us are happy in the little creature comforts.
@73ms yes, that's what I said: they don't have a monopoly on the information, as it's public by definition, but they have a monopoly on use of the information.
And that underscores the problem identified above.
@EvilSandmich I'd say mainstream GOP would agree with you that Biden isn't in charge.
Really, I'd say their logic is flawed in a different place: their simultaneous declaring that the law isn't being followed and then the demand for new laws.
But that's what they're working with.
@Ronial again, us poor ones that derive value from whatever war you have in mind would like some consideration, if you can stop obsessing over the rich for a moment.
@Ronial I suspect most people running server farms are already informed enough that I don't need to tell them how the system works.
Bitcoin can run on a RaspberryPi and a solar panel. It doesn't require that much power.
You could set it up today if you wanted to.
It's not an inoffensive logical puzzle. It's just a sensational story being sold despite being factually wrong.
@Free_Press if you check out mainstream GOP discussion, that explanation doesn't really hold water.
For one thing, they already think Biden's lost and cannot be resuscitated, so it doesn't matter if Biden gets a win, regardless of anything Trump would say.
Secondly, they'd count it as a win for themselves and crow about it. Trump would count it as a win in his gobbeldygook.
But mainly, they don't think the Senate legislation goes far enough and they're willing to hold their line thinking it will get them their win.
They're obsessed with border, and that's the reason this legislation is not gaining sufficient Republican support.
@noyes one issue is that I've heard Moderna flat out agreeing with your description, even while third parties, including government officials, engaged in that misrepresentation.
It's a tricky thing to decide how much responsibility Moderna has for others' false advertisement.
So much of the information is public. They don't have a monopoly on that.
They DO have a government enforced monopoly on *use of* that information, and that's what we should be reevaluating, the circumstances in which government should offer to enforce such monopolies.
@AlexanderKingsbury @LisaKalayji@sfba.social
@AlexanderKingsbury I'd clarify one thing in your comment: it's not that they have permission from government to sell you something but that they have the government *blocking others from selling it.*
Their monopoly isn't natural but rather artificial, enforced by threat of enforcement action against anyone else who would enter the market to compete.
Yep, it's cronyism, but when you identify the mechanism it zeros in on the problem and also sounds worse.
@LisaKalayji@sfba.social
@nurglerider nope, but the fact that all the people I know using Bitcoin does mean that non-rich people do use it, so even if you don't care what the rich people think, maybe you'd care that we little people derive value from it.
If you don't care what rich people think, why are you so obsessed with them instead of considering the little guy?
@Ronial Bitcoin doesn't rely on polluting the world, though.
Yes, there have been many sensational stories describing it that way, but they're based on misunderstandings (or misrepresentations) of how Bitcoin works.
That narrative is false.
@quatrezoneilles if you check the Senate records you'd see that the Senate failed to approve many nominees that Trump sent over.
Those stories were always just sensationalism.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/2020/Final_2020.pdf
@mk firstly, he failed to live up to his promise to end your vast conspiracy when he was in power.
Secondly, after that broken promise he made rude comments that gave the conspiracy extra fodder to work with. All his mean tweets. They confirmed the story being told by the conspiracy.
Thirdly, his losing efforts to challenge election proceedings in courts earned him no benefit but did play into the conspiracy's hands, giving them even more to say, "Look, we're right!"
I could go on and on, but the guy basically supported the conspiracy.
Wait, maybe Trump didn't actually do wrong, and his appearance as being such a loser and failure was actually an act because HE'S PART OF THE CONSPIRACY!
Woah.
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:
