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
If the president can prevent its members from working on cases involving classified matters unless they signal political fealty to him then there was never Independence at all.
Just tolerance.
@hsolerkalinovski I understand that sentiment!
In a way I stopped regularly checking many news sources as news sources a while back when I just got too annoyed with opinion taking the place of news.
These days I regularly follow them for both academic and practical reasons, which don't involve factual accounts of the world. On one hand it's really interesting to see how stories evolve based on assumptions and interpretations.
And on the other, if I know what different groups are talking about it makes it a lot easier to talk to acquaintances from those different groups. It makes a lot easier to understand what they're talking about if you know the background that they have been exposed to.
Pretty much just how all of society is working out these days 🙂
@hsolerkalinovski ha, as fast as the news cycles progress, who even knows what they were talking about just a couple of days ago?
@lawprofblawg and the people who died aren't like money.
So.
Keep in mind that #Trump is a spineless follower, so he hardly ever promotes schemes...err...solutions of his own, and this one is no exception.
For better or worse, a significant swath of the public decided that Ukraine isn't worth spending US resources to defend anymore, and long before Trump was elected this trade was cooked up as a compromise to bring them back on board.
Sure, Trump is slimy, but this scheme predated him and has brought him over to wanting to continue Ukraine support.
The alternative was probably weak public support overall.
@manton ha, I go farther and think all of the web tech in ActivityPub makes it kind of unavoidably fat.
Slim it down without content negotiation... and keep going :)
It's far too heavy of a protocol for what you get.
Oh, there have definitely been publicized cases of this over the years, even court cases, that circulated around even fairly centrist outfits.
I'd actually be a bit surprised that folks in academia HAVEN'T heard of it.
@europesays keep in mind that in the US judges don't really oversee the Executive Branch. That job is left to Congress.
Judges answer questions brought before them when the questions are within their limited authority to address.
So it's not that judges may make the administration explain what it's doing, but more that they'll invite the president to explain why they should give the answer he wants.
@vaurora hey, problem solved:
The ones frittering away 100 million dollars no longer have that to fritter away again!
Honestly, there might be something good out of this:
We've been letting Congress/congresspeople off the hook for far too long, and Trump getting all the attention has only made that worse.
A call for impeachment can be used to restore attention to Congress as it throws the ball back to their court.
I'd use this to say, OK that's nice, now over to Congress, how are you individual congresspeople going to respond? Let's give you the spotlight now.
Ah, section 230. The whole topic is a mess of misunderstandings and double negatives, so it won't end until Congress seriously looks to clarify the statute.
Unfortunately, that seriousness isn't likely to come up any time soon.
@zombywoof you're missing that democracy is directing this outcome.
No, Congress isn't abrogating their responsibility. Rather, it's doing its job in representing the constituents that each representative has.
This is what the country voted for, so they get it. Yay democracy.
A while back I heard an interesting way of viewing positions in #USPolitics:
> The left tends to make an error of sign while the right makes an error of magnitude.
That is, #Democrats might get the effects of some proposal backwards while #Republicans might think it will have far more impact than it actually will.
I see this often now that I look for it, including here in this #DOGE era where conservatives are vastly overestimating the amount of savings that they can get from the effort.
@ProPublica they keep citing the figure as they're reflecting what their supporters believe.
Mainstream right leaning media keeps repeating the figure, so the administration follows suit.
It needs to be called out forcefully that #BBC in its news breaks, If not elsewhere tonight, is flat out lying about what #Trump is saying about #Ukraine.
Trump says plenty of idiotic stuff. BBC has plenty to work with to show him as an idiot. But putting out falsehoods about what he has actually said only undermines #journalism as a whole because everyone who heard the direct quotes will know that the press is lying.
This goes beyond US politics. This is a serious problem for the whole world, and it happens way too often.
@theguardian_us_news maybe a top Democrat is not the best person to go to for reporting on what is happening inside the Trump administration?
@steter to be clear, the idea that the entire world sees Nazis is itself an illusion put in your head.
No, plenty of people aren't seeing that.
@burningbird It's really not bad. This is just how the process is set up to work, so the complaint will be on the record, but any substantial reaction will be proportionate.
Remember, we're working within procedures that have been designed to make sure things don't get really bad.
And the independence of the judiciary is a critical consideration in this complaint process.
Keep in mind that the Republican majority in the House is so slim and their party so fractured that Democrats could likely peel off just a couple of moderates and flip the House blue anytime they wanted to.
That they don't tells me we need some better Democrats because these seem to be putting fundraising over actual governance, instead of actually doing their jobs to counter Trump's efforts.
Remember, these are the same Democrats that voted with Republican hardliners last year. We need to hold them accountable for that and demand better candidates who will actually work and vote the way we want instead of just posing for the cameras and asking for money.
@realTuckFrumper I mean, we've already seen that that's not true.
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
