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
@BikingViking this kind of thing is why journalism has lost so much respect in the country.
Forget what's true, let's imagine this whole other world, let's promote crazy conspiracy theories!
It's amazing how often journalists will have roundtable discussions where they try to figure out why people don't find them credible anymore.
This. This is why people lost faith in journalistic institutions.
@Jennifer meh, I don't really think he is trying to enrich himself because he has plenty, and he could probably be spending his time elsewhere to make more money if he really wanted it.
No I think he's just found a next level opportunity to troll, so he's having a hecking good time getting attention in this position, while it lasts.
Again, You're running into the problem where you can't break through because step one is ignoring what he actually said and substituting something he didn't say, that you're making up.
Winning an argument? No I just have this crazy idea that we should respect fact and not rewrite what happened so that you can make whatever argument you want to make.
You're right though that you're not going to be able to break through when it would require me to ignore the facts in front of us.
And you really don't see how your paraphrasing is not the same thing that he said?
I think does not violate any law means exactly what it says, does not violate any law. It means that in the universe of laws that could be violated, the set of violated laws is empty. He said exactly what he said, does not violate any law.
You're talking about being above the law when his statement specifically says no law violation is involved here. There's no law to be above when he says that he does not violate any law.
You're trying really hard to substitate what he actually said with what you need him to have said so you can make this argument. And that's why the argument isn't really compelling, you're clearly fighting a straw man.
@randahl DOE management has been really screwed up for many years now.
From the article, it's not clear this is really about the administration. It sounds like the existing Department management might have dropped the ball yet again.
It's one of the departments in serious need of reform.
"He who saves his country does not violate any law" are literally not the same words as the ones you started arguing about above.
You talk about arguing in good faith when you are rewriting a quote that we can see right there on the page. Now that's an issue of bad faith argument.
I'm merely saying, let's not rewrite history when we discuss what Trump is saying. That's not a high bar for argument.
Wait, so are we supposed to take him at his word or not, and also by take him at his word, you want us to take him at some other words that you are putting in there, that weren't in the quote, that we are or are not supposed to be taking him at....
You see how your stance is a bit out there?
@karlauerbach My experience tells me that all of these stories of stolen elections-- including the stories promoted by Trump to be sure-- amount to to over the top conspiracy theories without much actual backing.
People actually do vote for these congresspeople, for some reason. I mean, yeah out of ignorance, but that's democracy for you.
Like you point out, Congress has delegated a lot of authority, and it has done that over the course of years and years. It's not like that's something that happened last year through some sort of anomaly or stolen election, no we have been voting for congressmen who have been doing that for generations now. We asked for it. So we got it.
That it's been going on for so long reinforces the idea that no, the elections weren't stolen. The American people really did vote for that shift through their representatives.
And so, no constitutional crisis, just the mechanisms in place to give us what we vote for. This is the system working the way it is supposed to work, even if that means giving the people a really bad situation, because if that's what the people want, well again, yay democracy.
@RegGuy so sure, the sky wasn't falling last time after all, but this time the sky definitely is, believe you me 🙂
No, despite the hysterical and sensational reporting, the sky is not falling. A lot of people just don't understand how the government works or how it has worked, so they lack the context to see that so much breathless reporting and political point scoring is pretty nonsensical.
@AnarresProject but Musk doesn't just get access on his own any more than you and I do.
The heads of agencies and the president gave him the access. There were official actions that gave it to Musk.
Again, he can't do a single thing without official sanction, any more than we can.
@revjss so first of all, the essay doesn't seem to notice that Ukraine did, in fact, resist. That happened. You can check that off the to-do list.
The situation is already different because that happened.
But more to my point, the essay doesn't propose a better choice. It says we shouldn't go this direction because of a not-quite-complete analogy with the past (again, overlooking that Ukraine did in fact resist) and that's fine, even Trump is clear that this isn't a great option. It's just that, what's the better option?
There is no world where Russia is simply going to shrug its shoulders and walk away. Russia is not going to cooperate in that best of outcomes. We do not have the choice of deciding for Russia that Russia is going to lay down arms.
So with that perfect choice off the table, what's the next best? That's what we're working with here.
@izzy Well if you're not looking to actually link to other posts, some instances support markdown so that you can style your post with multiple quotes.
@revjss Trump has been pretty clear about why he thinks this is a good idea: he believes it's the only way to end the war.
Anyone with a better idea at this point should bring it forward.
With the goal of ending the war, this seems like one of those occasions where it's the very worst idea except for all the others.
The one that draws a distinction between breaking laws versus not breaking laws is showing that he cares about whether the laws were broken.
One who doesn't respect the laws doesn't care whether they break them or not.
@drmambobob The problem is, we've built governments so complicated that it takes a specialist to be able to run them.
There's a ton of laws and procedures and background that all interact, and unless you're a professional studying it long-term, you won't know how at all works.
We hire professional politicians because we don't have the time or interest to learn about it ourselves, so we hire these people to do it.
It's a specialization, just like being a mechanic or doctor or anything else that requires study.
@pinskal and you don't see the difference?
One respects law while the others shirk them.
@timsev Well this is what a lot of people have failed to realize over the years: the administration is not the government. It's only one piece of the government.
If you want the US government to be on board with something then you need the branches to agree to it so that it becomes the policy of the entire government.
Anything less is little more than a handshake agreement with the individual currently sitting behind a desk who will be replaced.
So yeah, it is wild, but it is wild because so many don't understand that they aren't making an agreement with the whole government, that they are just tying themselves to one administration that will come and go.
@craig_groeschel I just appreciated that you took the time to write this out 🙂
Nice investigation!
volkris
boosted
Of interest to no one, but I don't think Pine-Sol contains as much pine oil or pinene as it used to, if any. It doesn't smell like it used to (no this is not a Yankee Candle toot, stop it 🙂 ). It has this weird lab-designed pine-vanilla scent.
I have two bottles of "Original Pine-Sol (R) multi-surface cleaner". One (2020) says "active ingredient: glycolic acid 1.75% . . . Contains pine oil." The other (2023) says, "active ingredient citric acid 1.75%" They both smell about the same. Now that I know which is which, the one from 2020 maybe smells a little more harsh and chemical.
You'd probably do just as well using acetic acid 5%. Maybe throw in some sodium bicarbonate for mild abrasive and foaming action. Citric acid: what a rip-off smh.
Anyway I said I wasn't going to use carb cleaner or Foamy Engine Brite on the stainless steel cooktop, but I caved rather quickly. Don't do that, but if you do, be safe, use the exhaust fan, clean up thoroughly, etc.
I have Bar Keepers Friend, but I cannot deal with oxalic acid today.
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
