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
@changemewtf it IS a preference, not one that I share, but it is absolutely a preference, and if you don't engage with it as a preference then you lose the argument before it begins.
Yes, a lot of people prefer this. If you don't realize that then you won't be able to even begin to try to shift those preferences.
And that's how they win.
If you don't engage them where they are then you leave them to continue this stuff. You can yell all you want, but it does no good. Heck, that sort of approach is how Trump got reelected in the first place.
If you don't engage in a winning strategy than you lose, we all lose. This is the kind of thing I've been warning about for years, and it came to pass, because people did not engage in winning strategies against this kind of thing.
Yes, it is a preference, and that's why we need to counter it so that people prefer policy that is more humane, in my opinion.
@futurebird I would emphasize that whether or not the pay is unreasonable should be up to the worker. It disempowers them for me or you to impose our idea of reasonable onto them, taking away their ability to choose for themselves based on their own lives.
This is about workers rights. They can choose for themselves. They aren't children that we need to be paternalistic about.
Keep in mind that that is a political choice, a matter of personal values, and whether I may or may not agree with it, I know that a lot of people absolutely believe that rounding them up is itself the proper role of government.
You have to realize that it's a political question of personal values, that there is no one way, if you want to change policy. Just saying there is only one way gives up the fight of engaging with people who believe otherwise, and bringing them over to your point of view.
Yes, rounding them up is an option. Personally, I don't think it's an option that matches my preferences, but I have to appreciate that it is an option so that I can invite people to choose the option that I would prefer.
@gclef the EPA said that it would be standing up a new scientific division, so all of this is a bit sensational.
We'll have to see how it works out, but there's a very good chance that this will actually improve the scientific mission of the EPA even as everybody is running around with their hair on fire yet again.
It's not an accurate story though.
@CuriousMagpie But it's not learned helplessness.
We actively, helpfully elect the congresspeople who set the stage for all of this. And we reelect them because apparently we like it.
We are getting the government that we voted for. We should probably stop footing for them.
Yes, we keep talking about this supposed imperial Court, but that story is a distraction from the actual way the system works, I distraction from our votes for Congress.
@stevevladeck.bsky.social repeated, unexplained?
Once again Kagan doesn't sound like she's paying attention since the explanation is kind of clear.
Heck, there was an explanation right in the opinion above.
Is she being willfully obtuse?
@Nonilex No, not at all.
The main safeguard is Congress. We keep electing people to Congress that sanction all of this.
Don't blame the court, those aren't the safeguards the aspirational Pacific founders put into place. Congress is the safeguard.
Let's stop re-electing the same congresspeople.
@zalasur Yeah exactly, Democrats seem to be so intent on preaching to their own choirs that they don't realize how much they are elevating their opponents at the same time.
I honestly don't think we should let the governor off the hook for this. He's not cut out for politics since he is doing this, and he shouldn't be re-elected because of that.
@Akshay no, there's an important difference between questioning harm vs intentionally causing it.
Very often Republicans want to help, but they're just ignorant of the world, so they don't know how.
@DeniseG rewrite history? Or update it as new evidence emerges that raises questions about the story folks settled on back then.
There's nothing wrong with updating what we know based on new information.
@walterolson.bsky.social well right, because #Trump's core proposal is that he'll fight, not that he'll win or accomplish any particularly useful outcome.
Always view Trump through that lens.
"Fight, fight, fight" is famously the line he pushes, and these are fights he's picking.
I always bang the drum that #Democrats pretty much promoted #Trump back into office with their campaign strategies that played exactly into the rhetoric he was using.
I was saying it at the time, and I feel sadly vindicated.
Why didn't Ds attack Trump over #Epstein? Well, I always said they should have attacked Trump over his failures and incompetence.
Instead, as you say, they attacked him with cries of fascism that only built him up in the eyes of voters that were into certain policy proposals.
IMO it was because Ds were more focused on preaching to their own choirs than actually defeating Trump.
And so not only did they lose but they HELPED Trump win.
Sadly, they have not changed course now.
@CindyWeinstein US Supreme Court can only rule on cases brought before it, and generally only in the course of an appeal of a lower court's ruling.
Generally, though, it's the people we elect to Congress who would be addressing this sort of thing.
Nah, public approval is very important to them. Trump runs on a message of being the guy for the people, and his whole thing is appealing to popularity.
The twist is that they're happy to live in an alternative universe with their own positive popularity numbers regardless of what the data says.
Remember his most attended inauguration in history? Facts don't really matter.
@gelliottmorris.com
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social It's more that he blabbers about some random thing that he heard on Fox News, that he barely remembers, and then he lets everybody else fill in the blank of interpretation.
You make it sound intentional or premeditated. It's not. When you listen to Fox News and then you compare it with what he says you can see exactly what he's referring to, he just doesn't bother remembering the story enough to lay it out well.
Trump's just not that with it.
@Lazarou I think that's exactly what happened
@theleavingyear No, this is once again NPR getting the story backwards. And they really need to knock it off because it's really hurting faith in journalism.
No, that's not how the Supreme Court has been ruling, and if you read the rulings themselves, NPR is just really out to lunch. NPR reporting is once again easily debunked from the public sources.
It's really a shame that NPR has let us down so badly for a generation now.
@kaspa The key is to stop reelecting the same congresspeople who keep screwing us over and funding these projects.
@PariaSansPortefeuille those aren't the stated intents of the attacks architects, though.
Yes, the attacks were stupid, but this isn't helping.
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
