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
@MisterWanko It literally is since as it says given the government restrictions on renting out the apartments they are pushed towards keeping them empty.
Those restrictions can be dropped any day and Lord knows the landlords would love to take in income from renting them out.
So any day of the week, let's have those restrictions on renting dropped.
@lauren do you mean in terms of health effects of the little radios?
In that case it seems like the simpler way, or at least the healthier way, to make some people more comfortable is through education about how little health risk there is from those devices.
That's rather than indulging their fears.
@Hyolobrika keep in mind that there is a speech element to barring a person from office if you prevent people from expressing, through voting, their preference for that person.
This is one huge element in the current Trump drama that there's a huge difference between kicking him off a ballot versus letting him take office if elected, but the two issues are being muddled together.
@freemo Right, neither do I, and that's why I would say we both (and everyone else) need to be ready to proudly state that we are intolerant of certain things 🙂
That's my point.
Rather than redefining tolerance we should all own the causes where we promote intolerance.
@Hyolobrika I think the first step in that question is being honest about what it's doing.
Like you said, sacrifice some democracy. I'm glad you put it that way. So many people not only refuse to put it that way, but they deny that they are doing that in the first place.
We as a society can't really discuss whether we want to make that trade off or not if we are refusing to call it what it is.
Well I was channeling the nonsensical notion that in tolerance would be tolerance but to be practical:
If you want to be a tolerance absolutist, to borrow Musk's term, then yeah you do have to be tolerant of even absurdity. If you want to claim such absolute tolerance, well, that might be rough, but it will involve tolerating a bunch of wacky stuff.
And that's why absolute tolerance is pretty unworkable in the real world.
In the real world, in most situations, we will be intolerant, and that is a good and healthy and mature thing so long as we draw the lines in appropriate places.
We should celebrate being intolerant of things that make the world, or our lives, or the situation worse.
Don't like Nazis? (whatever that means to you) Fine! You're probably going to want to be intolerant of them, and that's the right thing to do.
But it's the wrong thing to be reasonably intolerant of Nazis but claim that you're being tolerant.
No, be intolerant! And proudly say that you are intolerant of Nazis!
It's just Orwellian to try to rewrite the word for no particularly good reason like that.
@freemo nobody said you have to be tolerant!
But if you're going to be tolerant then, yes, you have to be tolerant to the point of absurdity if it comes to that, by definition.
And that's a great reason not to be absurdly tolerant!
@todayilearned Well more importantly it's a sign that the restrictions on renting out these apartments make them unavailable to people who need housing.
We should really rethink rent stabilization with examples like this.
When government restrictions make it costly to provide housing, we need to rethink those restrictions.
@paulschoe No because it is core to how the actual process works.
The distinction is key because it describes the process for congressional appropriations, and the president's role (or lack thereof) in the legislative branch.
Given the political and legal realities around Netanyahu, and everything we know about the realities surrounding Biden, at this point even the issues of money and bombs aren't enough to guarantee that he would take the call.
And there has been reporting about supposed snubs showing exactly that between the two.
Keep in mind the state of the coalition government in Israel right now, and the time horizon of Netanyahu's tenure.
@accretionist@techhub.social what of him?
We should call out Biden for his screw ups on his own sake. He's really screwing stuff up. And we should hold him accountable for that and not let him scapegoat or distract or anything else.
Biden is screwing up, and that has nothing to do with Trump.
I will say, though, not that it matters, but Trump seemed so incompetent that he was unable to screw things up even if he wanted to. Again, not that it matters.
It has been actions of the Biden administration that have really reached into our workplaces and screwed things up, and he really needs to be held accountable for that. I've never seen it this bad before.
@freemo I'd say the key is to just be honest.
If a person doesn't want to tolerate something, great! They should own it. I'm going to be intolerant about my friends being jerks in my living room.
Intolerance is not necessarily bad.
And in fact a person can highlight just how bad they consider something to be by saying, that idea is so unacceptable that I will be intolerant about it.
So I always tell people to just be honest, own what they are doing, don't try to rewrite the language instead because that just gets silly and even undermines their causes.
2 + 2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of two
Tolerance is absolutely a virtue for sufficiently intolerant definitions of tolerant.
@dikleyt@deadinsi.de Gills can be hard to maintain outside of aquatic environments.
@impactology what in the world?
There are tremendous amounts of resources spent every day that speak to the opposite of this post, with armies of people working on making education more effective and approachable and accessible. There are entire fields of studies focused on that specific issue.
Have I ever met such a person? Yes! I meet hordes of them!
@Mikewashere what makes you think Netanyahu would even take the phone call?
Joe Biden has really squandered his influence on the international stage.
@eastgate sounds like faulty electronics inside the bulb to me.
nazis
@liamvhogan I mean, I don't think support of authoritarianism has been a leftist cause traditionally, but more importantly here, such attacks end up confirming the claims of far-right extremists, firing them up rather than being extraordinarily effective in shutting them down.
Even if you're going to be authoritarian, fine, but please don't feed the trolls.
@Jayslacks you might have a different opinion if you were personally being negatively impacted by actions of his administration.
I wish he was boring. Instead I've been facing years now of having him throwing workplaces into disarray, threatening people's jobs, calling to question future funding, and generally just sticking his nose into things and mucking them up.
And that's not even getting into the rather not boring state of conflicts around the world.
Oh I wish Biden was boring. Sadly he's not.
@SeaGoatGirl I mean, they are the best self-promoters who leave people thinking they aren't self-promoting...
Taylor Swift is a pro!
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:
