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
@mcpinson I mean, it's not supposed to.
Trump's threats and bluster are about promoting himself, not about anything else.
And raising money from people who don't have the background to know that he's lying to them.
@evan you have no trust and safety on the Fediverse, just by virtue of how the system was designed.
It's extra problematic that people don't realize that and take precautions.
@adhdeanasl because your description of an imperfect administration making progress doesn't match with the reality so many of us live every day, as we see Biden engaging legally dubious acts, spreading falsehoods, and even with all of that, largely failing to make substantial benefit for so many.
If he's going to act corrupt, one would at least hope he'd get some success from that. But no, he just seems both corrupt and incompetent, and I'm not willing to downplay that as doing his best.
We have two crooks headlining this election. Might as well be honest about it.
@cjd exactly.
So many Trump critics lash onto easily debunkable claims when there's plenty wrong that the guy DID do.
Why make things up?
@realcaseyrollins I'd go a different way with that.
Yes, standards were temporarily lowered, but that's because they were too high in the first place, and we need to reevaluate those standards, as Operation Warp Speed laid bare to see the costs of getting the balance between safety and progress wrong.
@Captain_Jack_Sparrow @cjd
@noplasticshower from their perspective it's the opposite: BECAUSE the flag deserves respect, that's why it's a protest against the state of affairs.
It's respectful recognition of the flag in the course of expressing what they consider to be important.
@moira news is reporting that Good backed a different GOP candidate for presidential nomination, and this is Trump's way of returning the favor.
@onehushhush funny thing is it depends on which side of the story you're on.
From the reporting I've been hearing, Biden's trying to take the other side, it's theirs if it works and Israel's if it doesn't.
The dark side of #fediverse
The sad thing is that I personally probably align well with that community, and the only reason I even learned about the block was that I tried to ...
@RunRichRun well, sadly it's not so much loyalty to Trump but rather loyalty to this alternative reality that conservative commentators spent months building up around the trial.
If you believed all of the false claims they've made about the trial then you'd say the same, that it's ridiculous to respect the outcome.
They're wrong, and that's a shame. But yet again, it's a call for us to find some way to restore faith in legit reporting instead of letting this nonsense fill the vacuum.
@iuculano the Supreme Court isn't a person. It doesn't have the capacity to be upset. And it does us no good to act like it is.
Different justices have very different personal opinions, different backgrounds, philosophies, approaches to life.
That diversity is a good thing. We should celebrate it and encourage it, not let it get lost in oversimplification.
@rameshgupta right, you keep getting lost in your abstractions, but they're not at all realistic.
Heck, just look at this comment. the reason for any court to exist is to administer justice? That's pretty weird considering the Supreme Court's lack of authority to administer, which is left to an entirely different branch of government.
Your theories here just don't match reality.
@JBShakerman you have it backwards: the justices are helpless by design.
All the justices can do is write opinions. They're helpless to enforce or otherwise enact their opinions.
This was a critical part of the separation of powers in the US system: unelected, unaccountable justices were intentionally left helpless and reliant on others to actually give force to their opinions.
@realcaseyrollins does that mean no, you don't have anything solid to base your perspective on?
@Captain_Jack_Sparrow
@darulharb The structure of the NY law takes care of that criticism, though.
The law is written such that they just need to find nefarious intent. The specifics of the intent don't matter to the law any more than the motivation of a thief matters beyond just wanting to steal things.
@JBShakerman do you want an independent judiciary or not?
That's what it really comes down to.
I believe judicial independence is vital to protecting the free society, so I'm willing to accept a court that cannot be policed by the other branches, the branches that they will occasionally be asked to rule against.
You can repeat the slogan that the court cannot be above the law in a free society, and it sounds nice, but pragmatically, when the rubber meets the road, it really must be.
@FantasticalEconomics the problem is that both major parties believe they're doing exactly this and the other one is doing that.
And they both have some legs to stand on, because they're both a bit awful.
@JBShakerman no, because it's fundamentally saying that there can be no such law, no matter how good you write it.
If we value an independent court then we cannot have it depend on those laws. Any such law violates that firewall, no matter how it's written.
@lawprofblawg I imagine Trump figured he'd be better able to leverage a trial for political means than a plea bargain.
@juergen_hubert this highlights a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good:
We all lose out when people don't post good content because they can't make it perfect. Better to have an image without alt text than to have no image at all.
As for AI, maybe it should be seen as running on the reader's end and not the publisher?
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:
