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
@moira that conspiracy theory has not been confirmed, though.
@benroyce That's not what happened in 2000, though. People forget what the actual case before the court was.
The Supreme Court did not call off the counting. That wasn't the question before them. Instead, the question was whether a lower court had legal authority to intervene the counting process, and the Supreme Court merely pointed out that the lower court was wrong.
The court had no role in the counting process. It only had a role in making sure the lower court acted according to law, which it didn't, so the Supreme Court reversed them.
The state was free to continue counting as per law.
And in the end multiple journalistic institutions concluded that had the count going on Bush would have won anyway.
@duncantherowe Bluesky he is working well enough for me. Not sure why you would see it go to shit...
@samhenrigold What killing spree did Trump go on?
@ShadSterling or they would have just never made any products for the public at all, or maybe they wouldn't have recalled the products at all.
That's the thing, proposals like these are just not realistic, literally they're not realistic, because they rely on factually false stories, and going down that path often results in unintended consequences that are even worse than the problems they purport to solve.
Again, getting the problem right is the first step. And these stories don't get the problem right.
@stu fediverse instances don't grab all content from everywhere, so it might not be showing up because your instance isn't configured to grab that content.
@ShadSterling No in the real world these businessmen are not killing the public. That's the whole point.
It's not factually correct to say they are killing the public, and so policy made on the back of such sensationalized stories ends up being weak and often harms the public more than the ills the politicians purport to be addressing.
The first step in addressing any problem is accurately identifying the problem. It is factually inaccurate to talk about these businessmen killing the public when they're not.
@Strandjunker No, a large proportion of the population believes the exact opposite, believing that it went very well last time.
And unfortunately there's really no way to show them otherwise. So we're stuck with that.
@GofLeisure The problem is that so many have lost credibility over time that there is no reliable place to go for credible information.
The bar has been lowered that far, so people in general don't know what to believe.
With credible institutions giving up their credibility, the vacuum gets filled by questionable sources, because that's all we have left.
It was, sadly, an entirely foreseeable result of strategic steps. But here we are.
@enobacon Yes, people are for real, they really want substantial discussion instead of this knee-jerk partisan stuff.
If you want to win them over, then you need to put forward convincing arguments.
And also keep in mind that some people will notice arguments that fall on their faces right out the door with things like the post office being an independent agency separate from a president's policies.
uspol, voting
@carbonated_estrogen withholding our votes is the only way to express to the Democratic Party that they need to nominate good candidates, that they can't just rely on us to vote for their person.
Whether Trump or Harris wins, either one is going to be too incompetent to really do much especially with this Congress, so either way we're going to muddle through for the next 4 years.
The question is, what comes next? If we just vote for Harris because we don't like Trump, that tells the party that they can keep putting up bad candidates. Instead, if we vote third party that tells them they have to actually earn our votes.
It's better in the long run.
And it helps get third parties ballot access for the next time around too.
@randahl The problem is that Harris herself isn't very trustworthy, so a lot of undecided voters won't take her word on this.
I really wish the Democratic Party had chosen a different candidate. It was obvious that Harris was going to be a very weak one.
@moira watching the video clips, no, the Republican guy did not express a pro-Hitler stance. Exactly the opposite, he criticized talk like that.
The guy went out of his way to say the exact opposite of what you're framing here.
@Colman But I'm saying director s should not be held criminally culpable for things like that. It's a good thing that they're not held criminally culpable. Because it would be holding them accountable for stuff they didn't do, which is fundamentally unjust and practically counterproductive, standing in the way of providing goods and services that we want.
Investment in productive activities is a good thing. We should not be discouraging such investment, and promoting inequality while we're at it, by putting these threats over people and indulging in that sort of sensationalist rhetoric.
Our society is better off that we don't follow that path to illiberalism.
@wjmaggos really it's one of those cases where the reason we aren't implementing a solution is because society is legitimately split on what to do. We simply don't have a consensus about how to handle immigration. Without consensus we are simply paralyzed.
It doesn't take any conspiracy theory among employers or anything like that, the public simply doesn't have a consensus direction to go, so we're stuck.
Maybe someday we will have public sentiment solidify in One direction or the other, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.
@realTuckFrumper and Republicans bash Liz Cheney for being a dumbass.
I don't think this strategy is really going to do anything for anybody. It's just silly.
@johnzajac What media do you see that is reporting with the same level of credulity? I never see that.
I'm constantly seeing the media bashing the Trump side but not the Harris side. You can see it every single day even in things like news briefs on where they are appearing each day, pointing out that Harris is appearing at one place and Trump is appearing and lying at a different place.
The difference in credulity is not only abundantly clear but part of why so many have lost faith in the media.
It's not only real but a real problem.
@theguardian_us_opinion this article is written by a person who doesn't know enough about the US conservative world to have the context in which to interpret Trump's statements as his supporters do.
He more or less speaks a different language, he uses references that his supporters are extremely familiar with, but this reporter isn't aware of, so the article is really out of its depth.
In the end it really says more about the reporter than about Trump, says more about the state of #journalism today than about #USPolitics.
The comments about eating pets, for example, referenced a trope that is well known in the conservative media world. But this reporter doesn't seem aware of that, and so thinks it's something Trump came up with.
@chiefgyk3d Well we shouldn't overlook the responsibility of the people who bought into what the cryptobros were selling.
We all bear some responsibility when we hand over money for obviously stupid gimmicks.
@chiefgyk3d Well we shouldn't overlook the responsibility of the people who bought into what the cryptobros were selling.
We all bear some responsibility when we hand over money for obviously stupid gimmicks.
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:
