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
Also keep in mind that so many of Trump's supporters interpret his words in the opposite way.
When his own audience thinks he's emphatically against imperialistic military actions, that has meaning.
In theory, they should understand his verbiage since they're his choir he's preaching to.
@realcaseyrollins
Also keep in mind that so many of Trump's supporters interpret his words in the opposite way.
When his own audience thinks he's emphatically against imperialistic military actions, that has meaning.
In theory, they should understand his verbiage since they're his choir he's preaching to.
@realcaseyrollins
In the context of rhetoric (because who knows what Trump would actually do), his rhetoric is that he won't rule out the use of force as a way of AVOIDING war, of pressuring others to find peace.
Now he's a moron and his rhetoric might be effective or not, but that's a big factor here, if we're talking about his rhetoric.
@realcaseyrollins
@BohemianPeasant No, this article gets wrong what the SCOTUS actually said.
They didn't get the 14th Amendment wrong. They didn't even rule on the 14th Amendment.
What they said was that proper procedures weren't followed in a lower court REGARDLESS OF the 14th Amendment.
The #SCOTUS said, in agreement here, that the feds were entirely able to implement the 14th Amendment. Heck, if anything they emphasized the view here.
But it has to be implemented through proper channels.
That's all.
@europesays you do realize a whole bunch of the key figures here have been notorious for the children they have created?
How do you think they came to be?
I mean, good job wasting their time when they could be actually looking at legit edits instead of responding to this childish tantrum...
@david to be clear, it's not necessarily pandering to Trump. It could be implementing long-standing policies of pandering to the US government.
So maybe it should n't have had those policies of penering to the US government. Or maybe it should. Either way.
volkris
boosted
Most history books don't mention this for some reason.
@atomicpoet this is why I try to really emphasize the end user and empowering the end user to craft the experience they want.
I would even go farther than pluralism. It's not this group versus that group and accepting all the different groups, it's giving each and every end user the tools to experience what they want from what's before them.
All too often a lot of these clients forget about that. All too often we focus on instance policies when, again, let's bring it down to the end user.
Give them the tools and they will make the community that works best for them.
@BeAware@social.beaware.live
@theguardian_us_news It's funny because this is one of those many many occasions where conservatives saw the same press conference and walked away with the exact opposite conclusion.
Same words, but they saw it as the king embracing the idea.
But it's the same old situation we've seen for the better part of a decade now with people unable to agree on simple fact.
They're not sitting by spellbound. Each congressional representative is politicking, stunting, saying whatever they think their constituents want them to say and doing whatever they think scores them political points.
These congresspeople are playing very obvious strategies, often dishonest strategies, but we keep reelecting them so why would they actually do their jobs?
They're not sitting by spellbound. They're putting on the show that we reward them for.
#Musk has incentive here to protect the agency and expand its budget, if anything, since the company relies on affirmative action from the agency to operate.
Should the agency be defunded SpaceX will be left without licensing to operate.
ProPublica all too often goes for sensational takes rather than realistic ones.
They know.
That unelected judges can't control the actions of the executive branch is a basic part of civics, a fundamental part of the US system of co-equal branches.
Justices on the SCOTUS are aware as they know how the US government functions.
I just wish more Americans knew how their government worked.
People don't seem to realize that pretty much EVERY administration defies the will of the courts in their terms. #Biden did, #Obama did, going on back. There were ALWAYS occasions where presidents did things in violation of court order.
It just doesn't always get much press coverage, for better or worse.
Such defiance isn't new or outside of the structure of the #Constitution. No, the Constitution anticipates and provides for a solution from Congress.
In the end, it's up to the people voters elect to represent them in Congress to judge appropriate responses, ranging from defunding through impeachment.
So hold your representatives accountable. They escape accountability all too often.
@cybso no, it isn't the reason for the 2nd Amendment.
It all comes down to the people that we elect to Congress. It's up to them, in the end, to make the judgement call as to whether what the Executive Branch does is acceptable, so we always need to scrutinize the representative each of us votes for.
All too often we vote to re-empower politicians who are flat out screwing up but pointing fingers at the other branch.
Oh, I'd say SCOTUS did learn that, which lead it it being so unpopular on social media and within some political and power circles.
Recently a friend said we're about to see the Red Lobstering of the #US, referring to the time the restaurant chain was bought out, had its supply chain directed vertically, and then sent into bankruptcy.
At first I thought he was just going on one of his normally nutty rants, but then I realized he had a point, just in the opposite way from what he meant.
We've been in the Red Lobstering process for a long time. Measures ranging from national debt through public dissatisfaction with how power has been used point to that.
So what we're seeing now is the end of the story, not the beginning: the bankruptcy.
I always point out that #Trump is the result, not the cause. In this case, he's tearing things up like the bankruptcy administrator when things can't keep going as they were.
Yes, it's painful. Bankruptcy always is. And it didn't have to be this way.
But here we are.
Right, but the problem is, the coders will be saying the accountants were doing a bad coding job.
They're unclear as to where one field begins and the other ends.
Right, but the problem is, the coders will be saying the accountants were doing a bad coding job.
They're unclear as to where one field begins and the other ends.
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
