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
@amgine No need to reach for the sensational charges like that when, if the accusations are true, the feds could arrest him on much more solid violations of law.
Although I generally think so many of the accusations are hyperbole.
It's not a question of whether it has gotten too little or too much news coverage, but the big issue is that the news coverage it has gotten has been so often flat out factually wrong or at least misleading.
Just for example, there has been so much misreporting about what the Supreme Court actually ordered.
And so there has been way too much coverage that accuses Abbott of resisting Supreme Court orders that don't actually exist.
@StephenRamirez@universeodon.com but that statement is factually false.
That the president has no role in the process means he could not have injected himself into it, and he didn't. Because it was not possible in our system of government.
That it was not possible doesn't mean it's a big deal that he did it, because it was not possible for him to have done it, which discounts the accusation on its face.
@JustOneMoreThing@mindly.social
It's worse than that: mainstream Republicans are saying x, y, and z aren't in the bill even though other Republicans are pointing out that it is and the text of the bill is there for us all to read.
Well, I think it's worse. I guess it's in the eye of the beholder whether it's worse to play politics like that or to deny reality.
Well, let's see the offer and see what happens.
I think it would be something to see critics of Israel try that just for the challenge if nothing else.
The latest in #USPolitics for the many on this platform that never seem to have any exposure to #Republicans is that different factions of that side have contradictory claims about what's in the text of the immigration bill introduced to the #Senate.
One side says that the bill is awful because it does x, y, and z, while the other side says those things are emphatically not in the bill.
One side calls out the other for having supported the bill without reading it even as they themselves vociferously reject the bill... without reading it.
It's a really sad thing to watch, but in order to understand this moment in domestic politics one has to know that this intra party dispute over matters of fact is looming large.
And my impression is that it's really not about #Trump, at least not directly, even though he seems to be trying to claim credit for the tides that were moving already, as he often does.
From what I see it's more about conservatives who have no idea how the US government actually works and so had no ability to properly judge legislation, and so threw a giant hissy fit when they didn't get their uninformed way.
@StephenRamirez@universeodon.com Well it's not really about Trump, as mainstream Republican outfits wrote off the bill long ago.
This sounds like yet another case of Trump seeing which way the winds are blowing and trying to claim credit for what was already in the works.
@hosford42 that is literally not what happened.
Yes, Republicans tend to be pretty dumb, what of it?
It doesn't at all change what the Supreme Court actually said, or all of the misrepresentations of what the Supreme Court said, from Republicans and others.
@nazgul nope.
The technological advancements meant that less work was needed to supply goods for society.
If parents and children started dying in sweatshops 7 days a week that's a different problem that the technological advancements made less necessary.
If it happened anyway don't blame the technology that offered an alternative.
@josh CEOs are held accountable all the time. Lots are fired, lose their pay, get sued, etc.
@MugsysRapSheet I'm reading the SCOTUS decision from a point of view that if we want to know what SCOTUS said we should consult SCOTUS.
The rest doesn't actually matter, because that's how the US legal system works.
Again, where exactly do you find an error in their actual ruling, not in some strawman set up for dramatic sake?
@Hyolobrika well more importantly, it wasn't even logic as much as fact.
It's quite frustrating that someone would get so upset over a matter that they've been factually mislead about. The person had been lied to about what was happening in Texas, and that's really a shame.
But that's really the state of affairs in the US these days, and the state of journalism in general.
People have their own sets of facts, and pointing out that they've been factually mislead is regarded as trolling.
It's how echo chambers protect themselves.
@Thebratdragon @fkamiah17
@Wolven in this case it is.
Sometimes society is improved by its resources going toward better uses. We should not be spending society's resources maintaining production of buggy whips, for example, when we no longer have such need for horse drawn buggies.
So it is here. Society found better ways to direct resources, ways that benefit more people better, spreading more wealth throughout society, even as this relatively small group of laborers wanted to protect their jobs against advancement.
We should focus on building up, finding them better ways to use their labor, rather than tearing down, costing everyone the opportunities to benefit from advancement.
@MugsysRapSheet Have you read the argument (that I linked above)? Where specifically do you think it gets it wrong?
You say there is NO intellectually honest way to say it's respecting precedent, and that makes for a dramatic statement, but it seems to me the argument is emphatically focused on doing exactly that.
So where exactly is the argument wrong?
@hosford42 "nothing but have money already" is no trifle.
Those people sacrificed for the greater good, turning down other opportunities to benefit with that money, putting it toward society-improving projects instead.
To be clear, I'm not saying it was charity or that they were good people or anything like that, but for them to forego their own immediate benefit for the sake of a project for the greater good is itself something we should be glad happened.
If industrialism had manifested as worker cooperatives instead of capitalist enterprises then society as a whole would have probably been worse off.
@Wolven
@Wolven that's not what happened
@Wolven they were a labor movement that fought against technology that was set to improve society for all because they were busy clinging to the old ways out of a sense of self-entitlement.
It wasn't a technocrat PR coup. It was society as a whole telling them to knock it off for the sake of the general welfare.
@alx yeah, and I'm especially worried about the #privacy side of things.
I know some users will post to #Mastodon / #Fediverse believing that they're restricting the audience of their posting without realizing that the restriction is basically a suggestion.
I know this because people have been surprised to find out how insecure it is.
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:
