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
@Koochulainn no, not at all.
@fogmount believe it or not, congressional reporters often relay superficial versions of events that are (hopefully) oversimplified for the sake of what they think their readers want.
When a reporter skips the complexities of a rule voted on by the Rules Committee, for example, they're missing a complicated step in House procedure, but without including that step their readers won't have a full picture of what just happened.
Here's something real for you to check out if you'd like. Go through the list of votes on April 20th. I heard no mainstream reporter actually report that process, and yet the reality was just that complicated.
@icedquinn I'd rephrase that:
They're supposed to annoy people AND they don't work :)
I've seen so many cases where folks who would normally be on board with the cause tune them out at best or flat out turn and work against the cause after feeling harassed.
The problem is that it's not a good strategy in the first place. Annoying the people you need buy-in from is always going to be a pretty questionable tact.
@BohemianPeasant but they're not criminalizing homelessness in this case.
All of the people trying to criticize the case on that basis are repeating rhetoric that just doesn't apply, so it doesn't move the ball.
@RonaldTooTall
@farbel no, the ordinance before the court expressly provides no such punishment.
@PattyHanson you misunderstand the argument, though.
It's not that homeless could ever be a state, but that IN THIS CASE, the case before the Court, the context of the ordinance doesn't reach that far.
Yes, homelessness could be a status, but that status is not part of this ordinance, is what Roberts was alluding to.
@doctorLURK fuck no, and that's also not what is before the Supreme Court, so.
@maegul the key is to emphasize empowering the user to get the experience the individual user wants.
If a user wants only microblogging, then he can choose an interface that ONLY shows microblogging, if that's what best suits him.
All of the other content available does him no harm. His UI will just ignore it.
This is just an example of one way that UIs can give users what they want, the simplest example. Other UIs will serve users differently.
All of the content transmitted into the system give UIs more flexibility to serve users, so always focus on that serving of users, not on the publishing side.
@jonburr well, the charge isn't that it was stolen as much as illegally used and then hidden from required taxes.
@thisismissem consider savory options like stuffed peppers.
@ralfmaximus bingo.
That's why Trump has this ceiling that so many people miss or misunderstand, and why projections based on historical campaigns don't apply cleanly to Trump.
I hear SO MANY making projections that follow trendlines into the independent crowd without realizing that so many will not vote for Trump under any circumstances.
Many conservatives are happily optimistic because they think that once independents compare #Trump and #Biden, why, they'll obviously prefer Trump's policies and they state of the world under Trump.
They don't understand that so many will refuse to make that comparison in the first place, will refuse to even consider voting for Trump no matter what.
It's both sad and infuriating.
@icedquinn that's a realization that I wish more people would come to.
Not only do so many protests seem pointless in the first place, but so many are counterproductive, actually hurting their own causes by pissing off people they inconvenience.
All too often protests are just parties full of people who don't realize the negative impacts they're having.
It's pointless at best.
@scottsantens is that the myth, though? I'd think the criticism is that it's giving money FOR nothing, not TO DO nothing, which is a very different statement.
@cra1g can you point to a right winger promoting EMTALA forcing protection of unborn children?
I haven't heard rightwingers pushing that, so I wonder if maybe you misunderstand, or even if THEY misunderstand.
@fogmount that's not how the House functions, though, in the real world.
Yes, Johnson could have pushed the bill to the floor, a number of different ways, but each would have had serious direct and indirect drawbacks ranging from opposition from the House Rules Committee through yet another rigmarole over the motion to vacate.
And all without a guarantee that the shoved-through legislation would pass anyway due to the violation of norms.
The opposition to Johnson's proceeding without significant majority party buy-in would have had substantial negative repercussions to the whole chamber.
It took this long to build the coalition needed to move.
@sushubh this sounds like one of those cases where the report is conflating weak evidence with no evidence, which undermines its own reporting.
It's all too common in journalism around the world these days.
@bohnsdorfer55 as I said, the law has become quite a mess over time.
You're putting your finger on some of the mess that US courts now have to grapple with every day.
@ChemicalEyeGuy @TheConversationUS
@housepanther@goblackcat.social firstly, that's certainly a leap, looking at indirect aspects outside of the city's purview.
But more immediately, even if that's the case, it's not part of the issue before the court.
Heck, there's hardly a punishment in the ordinance in question, see the end of the appendix here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-175/275911/20230822105225753_Grants%20Pass%20Pet.%20App.pdf
::shrug:: if the people want to elect a prisoner, well, yay democracy.
@cwdolunt I don't really care what Trump's people claim. Often enough they don't know what they're talking about.
They can say whatever they want. Chances are they're just mugging for the camera to support Trump's reelection campaign.
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:
