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
@solarbird You're missing the important part of the sentence, though.
He vows to be a dictator for one day? But the one day is meaningless? No, the dictator part is meaningless, because the presidency doesn't give anybody that choice.
It's not like on inauguration day the elected president fills out a piece of paper saying whether he's going to be a dictator or not. No. By definition, the president is not a dictator.
All of these people running around with their hair on fire are just peddling the same sensationalized nonsense that is just not a part of the US government.
Now, Trump and his allies say that he was joking and making fun of, well, the sort of people who say this sort of stuff. It's probably true, you're playing into his joke, playing into his strategy. I wish you wouldn't fall for him like that.
But even if it wasn't a joke, then he's just more pathetic and more impotent because he doesn't have that choice.
Either way, Trump's a joke. And he needs to be treated that way, because taking him seriously is half of what got him elected.
@evan No, it's kind of a misunderstanding of the global order.
The global order was not set up to end the human rights catastrophe in Gaza and Lebanon, at least not in this way. In fact, such a setup would be unlikely to work at all as it would violate international sovereignty.
So it's the wrong tool for the job.
@samohTmaS you almost got it, but you forgot about the people.
Trump and congresspeople are empowered by the people of the country based on where they are coming from. This is democracy at work.
The election of Trump, and the potential reelection of Trump, and the elections of the numerous representatives is a result of a population that wants those people to represent their interests. So the question is, how has the institution failed those people so badly that they want to elect folks like Trump.
The path back to sanity is to engage with fellow voters and figure out what they want and how we can address them in a sane way, so that they don't feel the need to resort to electing these flamethrowers.
But regardless of all of that, which is more of a long-term question, the president still doesn't have such crazy authorities.
It sucks that the people are feeling so fed up with the system that they are electing people to take down the system, but that's a separate issue.
@adhdeanasl that's not a useful analogy.
Imagine you go to checkout at the grocery store and they start trying to diagnose your medical problems.
Trump is running for president, he's running for a political office, he's not running for a checkout or to be a doctor. So why in the world would you compare him to them?
It's a completely different role.
In our democratic process the people are selecting assholes to represent them and run the bureaucracy of government. If the people want a jerk, well, that's how the system works.
That is so different from any of the other examples that you brought up.
(Pardon my French in the following, but I really want to emphasize this)
Trump is running to be the top asshole, the head bureaucrat at the head of a branch of government. He's running to represent the US population, which by the way, contains an awful lot of assholes.
So why wouldn't we expect him to act like a jerk, to represent a bunch of jerks?
@cedar No homelessness is not violence, and any human who sees it that way really needs a better sense of perspective because they are misidentifying the problem that needs to be solved.
They are not being violated. If they treat it as violence then they will find no enemy to attack. There is nobody doing it to them. There is no face that they can punch to resolve the problem.
To sanction or support the treatment as a form of violence is to promote a perspective that is no good for anybody.
No, homelessness does not look like violence. It looks like a problem of getting someone what they need, it looks like a system that has failed to get someone what they need, and so we need to fix the system.
We should absolutely not buy into the idea that it's violence, since that stands directly in the way of fixing the system that is failing them.
Presidents can't use the military against their political opponents on the ground.
If Trump said he was going to flap his arms and fly across the country, would you take it seriously? Of course not. You would point out that he's nuts.
And that should have the same response here.
Presidents can't do that. So don't take it seriously. Use it to undermine him as ridiculous, not as a threat.
@professorhank@sfba.social Yeah, a simple recognition of executive privilege, which is well established.
It says if you have evidence of a crime, bring it. Absolutely prosecute presidents for crimes.
The two are just haggling over the details, but the fundamental issue is perfectly reasonable.
@saskiatxt.bsky.social@bsky.brid.gy
The topic is such a mess, in part because of how clumsily people think about the analogy.
> Firstly, the lack of an algorithm makes it a lot more of a level playing field.
Take this. In a physical town square there IS an algorithm of sorts. People naturally group into discussion topics, and as you walk around, different discussions get amplified to you.
Without that algorithm it's just a cacophony of jumbled words, as people do complain about on here.
Meanwhile we're faced with legal systems trying to apply town hall analogies that just confuse it all more.
We COULD work to get the best of town halls here without the worst, but so far we're really off-track.
@orbitalmayo@spacey.space but just because a view is narrow doesn't mean it's wrong.
Or, to be more complete, different people value different outcomes, and perhaps SpaceX IS achieving the outcomes that a person considers more important, and that's not to be waived away lightly.
NASA, as a government agency, must be responsive to the values of society, regardless of whether you or I might agree with public sentiment of the moment.
AND just as importantly, such agencies MUST make the case to the public that they are effectively achieving those results.
If people are missing key points about the value of governmental agencies, then government needs to work harder to engage with the people.
@MisuseCase this election cycle has been described as policy-free, and there's something to that.
So many voters are so focused on personalities and fighting for the sake of fighting that actual policy really doesn't play a huge role this time around, and that's a shame.
Politicians will naturally avoid talking policy since their positions will inevitably turn off those who disagree with their stance. They'd rather remain comfortably neutral, if voters will let them.
This time around, voters are letting them.
Firstly, Trump is clearly wrong about the law.
Secondly, this description is even more wrong.
Trump has the issue of war not being declared. But here, even if war was declared, it still wouldn't authorize the removal of those justices.
@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!
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
