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
I'd say the function of the Fediverse is to provide a communication platform.
How we communicate over that platform can be varied, with different people and communities using the platform in very different ways. Some passive, some active.
It's infrastructure. How we use it is up to each of us.
That's misinformation, though.
No, SCOTUS didn't give Trump presidential immunity. Quite the opposite. They ordered that the lower courts continue Trump's prosecution.
The Court merely said that presidents, Biden or Trump, aren't allowed to prosecute where there isn't a valid charge. It wasn't that crazy of a ruling.
As for the midterms, it's up to states to conduct their elections, so it's not up to Trump.
@dougiec3 Congress is a compliant rubber stamp?
That's news to Republicans who are complaining loudly that Congress is not moving forward with legislation to fulfill Trump's empty promises.
No, Congress has shown itself not to be a rubber stamp. Otherwise that legislation would be on his desk by now.
@randahl I don't know about on fire, but he really doesn't know what he's talking about
@annecavicchi No clue. Behind the paywall we can't see it if we did care or not.
@europesays Well because they're not worth covering.
I'd also say, I suspect there have been protests in all 50 states that also weren't worth covering, and that's why we don't really know about them.
These protests are without substance. So people are going to keep yelling, like they always do, they're not worth listening to.
@SenatorMoobs No, you misunderstand the argument.
It's not that states should be free to establish religious doctrine, It's the opposite, that states are bound not to be able to oppose religious doctrine.
@Flora IMO The solution is not to treat this as a systemic problem but rather a UI problem.
The key is not to rely on some method to make the people that you don't want to hear from go away (putting that diplomatically) but rather to not have their stuff shown to you because you don't want to see it.
In other words, let the trolls talk and talk until they are blue in the face and run out of oxygen. Just don't show it to me,. Then it's not about objectively judging who is or who is not a troll, it's just, I don't want to see that, so I shouldn't see that.
So it's a UI/UX problem. There's no objective way to solve it? Right, so let's treat it in the subjective domain.
How does this work practically? Well, just off the top of my head let users have a lot of control over their own block lists, or let them subscribe to moderators who approve or disapprove certain posts to appear on lists, things like that.
Maybe I want to see a little more edgy content. Maybe you want to see a little less. We can both be satisfied if we treat this as subscribing to moderators or judges that will mark them as more edgy or less edgy.
I really believe this is the way forward.
@FantasticalEconomics really?
This kind of childishness and posturing is how he got in this position in the first place.
@Sandywb The head of his Department has decided that he should have access to Department information for the good of the Department.
If he's getting into information he shouldn't have access to, that means the entire department shouldn't have that information. Which is a perfectly fine stance to take, but we've been warning about that for years, and that horse has left the barn.
It's like saying you shouldn't have access to your own financial records. Well, they're your records.
@semenko1979 the US legal institution simply has a very different relationship with international law than so many other countries.
You have to understand international law in the context of the nations who would recognize and adopt those laws, and the US has a long history of declining to join particular international proposals.
International law is only substantial and "black letter" to the extent that a nation adopts it, and US pragmatism leaves it much more skeptical of that power.
@MarvinFreeman this is really irresponsible for Krugman to be promoting.
No, the elected officials remain in control by definition, even as they control delegation, and they bear responsibility for what happens.
@zombywoof no, it was Trump following through on some stuff he'd campaigned on.
His supporters cheered, and that was the point.
@zombywoof no, it was Trump following through on some stuff he'd campaigned on.
His supporters cheered, and that was the point.
Well you don't really just broadly sue, that's not how it works.
You sue over specific actions and causes as per the rules of the federal courts and statute providing civil access to the courts.
So you'd name something specific and go from there.
@SaanichGuy Trump wants to get rid of government?
Wait, I thought he wanted to take it over and be all fascist, not get rid of it and give up the power.
People need to figure out which they're accusing him of here.
@the5thColumnist that's the opposite of what the SCOTUS ruled.
Their ruling not only cleared the path for prosecuting presidents who have done wrong, but they actively referred the case for further prosecution.
Heck, the core point of the case was a president doing wrong by prosecutorial misbehavior, and the Court told the president to knock it off, he was wrong to prosecute that way and that wasn't allowable.
@MisuseCase except, as some advocacy groups have pointed out, the administration didn't actually back down. It just made those motions.
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
