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
@secbox I feel this so much.
#Biden seems to like any particular respectable political philosophy, which in itself is very sad.
I can respect somebody who has a solid philosophy that I might disagree with, but Biden doesn't seem to have any philosophy at all, he just seems to be drifting in the wind, and that is not how a US president should function.
@scottjenson but then, I think Ted talks are generally worthless, so it's like, a forcing function toward mediocrity 🙂
I know, I know, just my opinion.
Give me unlimited lengths. If you have something to say, say it!
There comes a point when it's not so much misinterpretation as gaslighting.
If the meaning of public documents is so malleable then I guess we just should give up entirely. If we can't trust our own eyes to read what we read, then what's the point of even bothering with governmental transparency?
The rulings said what it said. People claiming that it said things that it clearly did not say should not be indulged. That sort of thing is really flat out antisocial.
@Hyolobrika Yes, if I had a switch that would censor all falsehoods that are harming society, I would censor that.
But such a thing doesn't exist, so the best I can do is go with the adage that the best solution to false speech is more speech, debunking the falsehoods.
@jpaskaruk The problem is that this story is a lot deeper than @rameshgupta described above.
The issue is that Willis and her prosecutor seem to have been lying to the court, to the judge, which is a cardinal sin. The professionals standing before the court are expected to be firstly honest with the court ahead of everything else.
And so in the face of the alleged breaking of their faith with the court and unprofessional behavior in these proceedings, the judge will have to think about how deep the misbehavior went, and in the end the entire office might be stricken from the case, which would entail bringing in an entire new team, which would involve starting from scratch, which would be a huge delay.
But let's be clear: Willis brought this on herself.
She should have known better than to open herself up to this sort of complaint, but she honestly just seems outright incompetent.
@Hyolobrika I mean, under different circumstances, where I had a switch that would turn off misinformation, I would flip the switch 🙂
@Nonilex I think a real takeaway from all of this is a lesson about the judicial branch's role in current events, that it's not like either of the other two branches which are better poised to act in a timely manner to address concerns people today are having.
The judicial branch is supposed to be one that takes its time and issues rulings that stretch out into the future, particularly when it comes to appellate decisions on fundamental matters of law.
In particular, when it comes to #Trump, this is why his team was so out of touch when they tried to put immediate election questions in front of courts. They went to the wrong branch of government with their concerns. Courts are not set up to deal with the sort of complaints that Trump had.
It is really key that the court will take its time to draft solid rulings without the pressure of time lines. That is its role in the US system. So this is functioning as it is supposed to, and we should not complain too much about it.
@lawyersgunsnmoney in the exchange that I think you're referring to the lawyer specifically did not answer yes your honor. The lawyer pushed back very hard against that position.
Yes, you're falling for conspiracy theories based on lies, and if you would look into it a bit more you would see that the claims are false, so you wouldn't be so quick to fall in for the conspiracy theories.
@freemo that has been the opposite of my experience.
Well I'm nobody. The best I can do is point to publicly available debunking information and point out how inaccurate journalism is these days.
In my experience every once in a while it will open somebody's eyes. For example, pointing out to a friend who is an expert in some field that reporters are reporting something they know to be wrong will sometimes make them realize that reporters are reporting false stuff in other fields as well.
I wish there was more I could do, but that's it.
@draftexcluder we can read the ruling for ourselves to see that those claims are wrong.
I wouldn't want to work to find explanations to justify claims that we can so easily debunk. Why not just accept what we can see for ourselves?
Ugh, #docker!
This doesn't help me feel any better with my long criticisms of the industry-wide move toward #containerization.
Versioning has always seemed to be especially problematic in those systems.
But mainly I'm half joking with this post. I know a person can't cling to the old solutions while the world moves on.
But you kids need to get [your containers] off my lawn! :)
@Hyolobrika Yes! And it has some really interesting ideas.
@erin My concern is false information spreading virally.
I'm sure the clinics can manage themselves, and they can manage themselves even better if they're not up against villagers with pitchforks who've been fed conspiracy theories.
We really need to push back against false information.
@Joe_Hill I mean, that's just how the US legal system works. It takes time. It should not be a blow to morale, unless you think due process isn't worth pursuing.
It's just the reality of the situation
@lawyersgunsnmoney but that exchange goes directly against what you are arguing here
@erin ARE they rightfully being cautious though?
That's the point. Just because a clinic halts treatment doesn't mean we should throw out what we can read with our own eyes.
It's a form of gaslighting at that point.
Really, it suggests that any clinic honestly halting IVF for legal reasons needs to throw out their legal counsel because clearly they are getting bad advice.
We can see for ourselves that the ruling doesn't say that. The question of whether an IVF clinic should stop their practice is a completely different question.
@ericmann I think that is sort of using the wrong tool for the job.
ActivityPub really includes engineering decisions that put instances, not users, at the heart of its design, so e2e encryption would be something like bolt on at the application level, when it should be part of the deeper structure.
Other platforms do that better, so let's just use those other platforms instead.
@lawyersgunsnmoney SCOTUS rulings are public, and we can see from them that these claims about being political hacks are nonsense, just conspiracy theories.
I mean, what arguments specifically do you find indication of political hackery?
You're throwing out these claims, but specifically what arguments of the court do you think are wrong and why?
@lawyersgunsnmoney where, exactly?
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:
