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
@Hyolobrika I don't think it's good that we talk about this in such politically misleading terminology.
When you tell people they have a right to healthcare, fine that's not a perfect statement, but more importantly, when they don't get the health care that they think they were promised, that's not just good, that's bad.
I think it's really important for politics to be honest because that's the only way for society to have honest discussions about the trade-offs and balances that they are looking to make.
It's not perfect being the enemy of the good. This is flat out bad.
@QasimRashid I completely disagree because for one thing quoting them both and then pointing out the truth raises one while warning about the other! It highlights that one is lying.
And second, debate moderators are there to moderate the debate, their job is not to fact check as that would involve them in the debate.
That's not their job. They would undermine their role to engage in the debate like a referee that chooses a side in a sports match.
@javawithjiva@mastodon.social The answer is that the members in the general public of the two major parties just don't really care about those priorities.
Mainstream Republicans consistently say they just want to fight. Like a WWE wrestling match. They don't even care about winning, honestly, they just want to fight. Okay.
Mainstream Democrats are following the tradition of nominating the sitting president. Why? Doesn't matter. That's just what they're doing.
Personally I'm not disappointed since this seemed to be the entirely predictable outcome from that situation in the country.
Either party could win the election by nominating someone else. That they have not really moved in that direction just shows that they're not really interested in winning. They have other priorities.
@MoiraEve@mastodon.world Well it's mathematical reality.
The program has a limited budget and so the independent bureaus that manage those programs cannot continue to write checks outside of their budgets.
Really the programs were founded on unsustainable plans. I guess the answer is to go back to the legislators decades ago who founded these unsustainable programs?
But that's just the theory. In theory they raise taxes sufficiently to pay people enough that they will jump up and fix patients, but in reality there are things like not enough doctors to fix the people, not enough doctors willing to accept that trade, etc.
There is no universal healthcare. Even if governments force doctors to operate at gunpoint, which to be clear I'm highlighting as the problematic thing, there will be a limited supply of doctors. It cannot be universal.
It's always going to be a negotiation, and the issue is how constraining that negotiation is on doctors, how much pressure we put on them to work for others when they don't want to.
In theory everything is wonderful and everybody gets fixed. Reality is much more harsh because it requires people to work to fix people.
@lisagetspolitik I mean, give us someone better than Biden to vote for and then he definitely won't.
So long as the Democratic party decides to put forward this idiot they roll the dice. The party is welcome to put forward someone actually worth voting for. It's up to them.
@Jgmeadows in general people calling other people fascist these days are just idiots.
Yes, it is sad that we have so many idiots.
@IgnatiusJReilly we could go through the whole list, but from Biden's deficits through his botching of his response to Ukraine through his DOJ failing to prosecute Trump, I mean I could go on and on just off the top of my head.
The guy is a fuck up.
The unavoidable problem is that healthcare requires people to work, input from workers, and so anyone stating that healthcare should be free runs into the issue of requiring people to work without compensation.
It runs into the issue of you're going to fix me for free. You're going to work for me for free.
You see how problematic that is?
Here's a quip:
Maybe #Biden's debate performance sucked, but even worse is that his record in office required him to perform well in the debate to make up for it.
For goodness sake, can one of the parties please nominate someone worth voting for?
@BootedUp I get what you're saying, but in this case the bad TV performance happens to correlate with bad performance in office.
It's not just that the guy stuttered a bunch. In part he was stuttering because he couldn't backup his performance in office. It's just really hard to come up with the words to explain failure.
It would be one thing if he was kind of quiet but everybody could see that he did a good job in his role, but he just couldn't really explain good things that he did because they don't really exist very solidly.
His performance sucked, but also it sucked that his record was so bad that he needed a performance.
@urlyman It's not the institutions of power, though. These political parties are made up of members of the general public.
And at any point the general public membership could demand change.
There's a sense of learned incapacity with the Democratic party right now. So far their membership seems to think that they can't choose a different person simply because of tradition. But they can. And I wish they would. But it's up to the general public, the membership of the parties to choose who they want to put forward.
@si_irini because the people happen to be humans.
And that's just human nature.
@statsguy frankly IMO Biden v Trump is a toss-up between two horribly screwed up candidates, and at any point either party could nominate pretty much anyone else and just win the election.
It's just kind of amazing that neither party to this day has decided they want to win. Both parties have decided that they want to roll the dice and see what happens.
Well both parties have time to change their minds and decide to play for the win. The first one to do so gets the prize.
What a weird state of affairs.
@alan but I don't believe those things 🙂
I don't believe factions are bad things, I believe that they lead to poor results. It doesn't really mean they're bad, but focusing on them is not effective.
I also don't believe that anything is about picking wise and noble people here. Rather, it's about picking people that do the job well, even if they happen to be complete morons that are also corrupt but somehow manage to serve the public.
So I would judge the public official based on his performance. What faction is he with? Don't care! Look at his voting record. Is he noble and honest? Don't care! Look at his voting record.
My preference is to look at performance in office of individuals, and as I watch the performance of parliamentary systems around the world I'm always struck by this issue.
@marynelson8 frankly, it sounds like you were making the mistake of trying to make sense of Trump's words.
@KilKerrin If it helps, keep in mind that so many Trump supporters don't care one bit about him being an effective president, they just want him to put on a show.
So when you say the system is broken, well, it's giving people what they want, it just happens to not be effective government.
So it's kind of like, is the system really broken if it's giving the people what they want when what they want is really stupid?
@marynelson8 Well what did you think?
If it raised your blood pressure, is that because you disagreed with the shows? What did they say versus what did you think?
@TammyGentzel My understanding is no.
My understanding is that libel law in the US requires that the person committing libel is aware that they are saying false things, and a newspaper truthfully pointing out that somebody is lying would be completely free from that.
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:
