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
@Geoffberner you talk about change, but this isn't about change. This is about what is.
Every one of these politicians was voted in. In fact, a whole lot of them have been reelected because apparently we like it this way. Apparently we decide to keep electing the same people because we like the way they are performing in office.
You're talking about a driver of political change, but in reality we are actively deciding to keep voting for the status quo. You talk about change, but we are voting to keep things the same way.
You say voting is a driver of political change. What I'm trying to highlight is that voting is why politics don't change.
We keep electing and re-empowering these representatives.
@Incognitim I mean right! The concurring opinions dispute your position!
Yes! Pull your head out of the sand and stop promoting these conspiracy theories that just don't match reality.
@Incognitim and maybe I also haven't believed flat earthers pointing out that the Illuminati controls the world?
No, it's not that I'm so intense on believing that the system hasn't been hijacked. It's that I hear the conspiracy theorists drop their conspiracy theories, but I actually read what comes out of the court and see that those extreme claims just don't hold up to the facts.
I'm sorry if you have fallen for the conspiracy theories, but come on, read the public record, it debunks all of that nonsense.
I wonder how well YouTube sharing goes on this platform.
@RunRichRun Biden's Treasury said otherwise, though, that the tax cuts did live up to their promises, as Treasury collections increased as expected.
@TMRuppert I think you're confusing honoring with recognizing.
So very often, we recognize people for both their positives and their negatives as a way of expressing that we all need to do better.
That's what I hear from these discussions.
@forpeterssake
@realcaseyrollins nobody wants to not hear back for three days, but I'd rather that than be limited to only those who happen to be on their phones right as I message them.
Yes, I want it now, but also, for a quality match I'm willing to have patience, AND on the other hand, I would want a partner to have that patience as well.
So yeah, like I said, provide an indicator about how many people a person has messaged.
If I can see that someone has messaged a ton of people one night, then chances are higher that they'll ghost if I bother responding.
@Free_Press you have it backwards.
The Title IX regulations Biden has proposed would threaten due process for LGBTQ students as well, so restoring those rights would be a good idea.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Even the idiot that Trump is occasionally stumbles into the right answer.
@mcnado Indeed!
It IS a choice to make a more considered understanding of a situation that might be important, for example, one where children are dying.
Or, you know, if that's not so important we can just stick to the vapid slogans. Whichever.
Personally, I think that's important enough to think more deeply, but you do you.
... every politician has been voted in.
Every one of these representatives has been chosen by vote, and most have been re-empowered by vote after their previous actions.
We could vote for different people. We could vote for change. We will when we want it.
Or we'll keep voting for the status quo.
Yes, voting is the driving force behind political change. And it's the driving force behind maintaining the same old.
We get the representatives we elect and that we re-elect, rewarding the lack of change.
They're our votes to use as we wish.
@Incognitim you're comparing apples and oranges, though.
As I said above, different cases have different levels of complexity and different contexts.
It sounds like you're so focused on outcome that you're completely overlooking how the system actually works.
@sj_zero but in the end, no matter how or why a representative votes the way he might, his voters that probably reelected him are affirming that yes, he did right, he deserves to go back and keep doing what he's doing.
We must not get lost in the drama to the point that we forget that we vote for our reps. We empower whatever it is they're doing.
@realcaseyrollins I'd worry that those rules would basically penalize folks who are too busy in life to be constantly on dating apps, which might be exactly the sorts of people you'd want to bring to your app.
I've thought about such things in the past, and I've forgotten my conclusions, but I did think it would be useful to show something like the number of people a person has attempted to contact.
If I know I'm one in three that the person tried to contact in the last month, I'm going to give that much more attention than knowing I'm one in five hundred.
Plus, this would disincentive blanket harassment.
I would always leave it up to the user, though.
@theguardian_us_environment twist: presidents don't have authority to do that, so the payments would have been for nothing.
@mcnado ah, you see, you've already shown that there's more to the story, just in your quote.
Well, I'd grind my own ax some more here :)
The job of Congress is for 530+ individual members to show up and represent concerns of their own voters and build compromise and consensus about what the US government should be doing, whatever concerns those may be.
BUT all too often people are ignoring their own representatives and voting for people who are doing the opposite of what they'd have them do.
Whether voters want their congressperson to be talking about infrastructure or books, well it's up to them, but they need to make sure their empowered person is doing what they want.
The job of Congress is to represent the concerns of the country, whether those are my concerns or your concerns or not.
@sj_zero copyright isn't a very solid basis on which to make a practical claim of ownership since not only is it extremely limited by different and complicated legal jurisdictions, but those limitations tend to be pretty significant anyway.
In other words, practically, copyright as ownership is a very weak claim.
That's why restrictions laid out in TOS are so important, if they're important to you.
And it's why ActivityPub/Fediverse if anything undermines those ownership claims.
@sj_zero on the other hand, since you're handing them content willingly, without a TOS specifying that you retain rights to the content, therefore they're free to use what you handed them.
TOS can restrict them. Without a TOS, they're free of that restriction.
Don't hand anyone content without restriction in the transaction if you want restrictions on the transaction.
@mcnado wow, way to ignore context.
@ilust606 I know that's common framing, but I don't think it's the best way to describe what goes on in the House.
It's not that Democrats propped up Johnson, but that the House as a whole decided not to change their Speaker.
We need to be emphasizing that the Speaker of the House is not a party position. They represent the whole House, including the minority party, so this was the entire House rejecting the nutjob this time.
Sure would have been nice had the Democrats not supported the nutjobs last time. We probably wouldn't have gotten back to this point.
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:
