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
@professorhank@sfba.social the SCOTUS said nothing of the sort. In fact, its ruling said the opposite.
Firstly, the ruling said absolutely nothing about investigation. If the president wants to spend resources investigating, he can have at it, so long as he stays within legal boundaries.
But the ruling made clear that presidents are free to prosecute any action outside of official authority.
@Eka_FOOF_A it's more that he's surprised by so many people repeating the exact opposite of what the ruling said.
When people criticize the ruling for letting Trump off the hook, Roberts finds that surprising as the ruling promoted prosecution of Trump, explicitly sending his case for further prosecution.
Websites like dailykos don't help this situation, and Roberts is kind of stuck addressing a public that doesn't know what the Court actually said.
The article is focused on criticisms of the FBI and two different presidential administrations, headed by presidents of two different parties.
Why in the world would Kavanaugh lose his job over what the other branch of government did?
Ethics on the SCOTUS can be enforced by impeachment and removal from office. But this story isn't about the justices.
@light I don't remember who it was this time, but it comes up surprisingly frequently in my experience.
@europesays ... The system that they are proposing to reform, whether they can or not, is not the system that made them billionaires.
Heck, I'm not even sure they are billionaires.
Either way, what's with this meme? It's pretty out there.
@europesays It's honestly a bit suspicious to have the exact same numbers considering all the differences in polling strategies and analytic methods over the years.
It's a pretty big coincidence.
It's always striking to hear a self described liberal in the US praising feudalism and sounding like they wish we could get back to that sort of system.
That's just how it's going over here.
@MHowell so they're just continuing their trolling.
It's cute, but it's not the kind of game that should be taking up the resources of courts that are already stretched kind of thin. Society paying for their stunt.
@kimwulff keep in mind that so many Trump voters are motivated by wanting to throw grenades into the status quo.
That the guy presents this way serves their purpose.
His cognitive disorder is what the voters want!
@paul yep
ActivityPub made some technological choices that I'm very critical of, and stuff like this was so unnecessary.
But here we are.
@MartyLemert No, I meant what specifically about the Roberts Court are you referring to?
I'm well aware of the reputation of Dred Scott, and that makes it even more curious how you could compare anything from the Roberts Court to that famous decision.
@mickymorse The GOP voted to fund programs that help old folks.
@OWHolmes The reason is likely because the administration simply is not confident that it would be able to empanal a jury to agree that the evidence proved the crime, regardless of how convincing you personally feel that might be.
That's just how the population of the country is, a whole lot of people don't find it convincing, and there's a really good chance that cross-section would end up on the jury and prevent conviction.
@Linux_in_a_Bit we don't have to speculate based on patterns or statistics because we have the flight data recorder telling us exactly what happened. The flight data recorder showed pilot error.
Part of the problem of course is that the press started spreading these speculative stories before the flight data recorder was recovered and analyzed. By then everybody was already running with an incorrect narrative.
It's worth emphasizing that because it happens so often these days in so many different areas of reporting.
@FloydyStu Well that's not true.
@strypey The biggest criticism I have about this is the continued focus on instances instead of users.
@Parnikkapore No the flight data recorder showed that pilots regained stable flight once they turned off stab trim as per per standard operating procedure, but for some reason they turned it back on, and that action on the part of the pilots led to the tragedy.
@aureliano but again I'm trying to emphasize here that Republicans don't actually want to win, really. Trump doesn't really want to win. He's too stupid and lazy to really want to be president, to actually do the job.
He's looking for attention, and we're giving it to him.
He needs to appeal to swing voters? Nah, because winning isn't the point. If the point was winning, then you would be right, but it's not.
He wants to stand up in front of crowds and cosplay this guy everyone likes. And he gets that regardless of winning, in fact he gets more of it if he doesn't win because then he gets to pretend he's such a victim, and he gets more attention from it.
And to repeat, the biggest indication of all of this is that Republicans didn't nominate someone with a better chance of winning. Because so many of them don't actually care about winning.
You can hear this every single day in mainstream conservative media.
Trump needs conservative attention, not popular support or electoral success.
@wiredfire No that's not at all what I mean.
You say Facebook should not be giving people what they want? Well maybe it should maybe it shouldn't. Whether it should or it should not is a matter for our values.
@wiredfire No that's my point: you seem to be talking about values without realizing that you're talking about values.
I'm not saying whether that's good or bad or in keeping with my own values. I'm just saying that when you talk about what should be and what we should do and what Facebook should do and what should or should not be kept away from other people, you're making an argument based on values, and it doesn't sound like you appreciate that.
Well I will say that in my opinion, based on my own values, I think it would be better if you realized that you were talking about imposing your own values on others. But... this is social media, so that's not a requirement 🙂
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:
