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
@cazabon More likely he did it just to get in the headlines, to get attention. It's really all he cares about.
volkris
boosted
@b7bird.bsky.social What in the world?
If you listen to the GOP they are solidly behind it.
@Hex absolutely not.
It's like saying that Trump flapping his arms failed to fly around the room is because of protesters. No, it's because his bullshit never had a chance in the first place.
In fact anti-fascist organizing gives him a leg up because he gets to run against it. It actually helps him. He's still going to fail because he doesn't have a chance because he's an idiot, but the anti-fascist organizing helps propel him a little bit farther than he would otherwise.
He would probably have never been re-elected without the anti-fascist organizing. It's a large part of what got him over that line of beating Harris.
Trump is going to fail because he's an idiot the same they way that he was convicted because he doesn't know how the legal system works, but the anti-fascist organizing is only supporting him as he uses it in campaign speeches to his crowd.
@realcaseyrollins you give the people what they want!
@hanspetermeyer congratulations, Canada, you just got a boondoggle.
@foxmental.bsky.social It's not a ruling
@lisagetspolitik What actions?
This seems pretty unlikely.
@tirrimas so they joined a federal program instead of a state program? Seems reasonable.
@rhys this seems kind of twisted and bizarre.
It seems to be an originalist argument against originalism. It seems to be saying originalism is a modern development by using originalist methods of analysis to look at originalism in the early days compared to the way originalism is talked about now.
So it seems self-defeating.
Conservative media: #Trump is awesome! When you're covering him on a trip it's hard because he doesn't sleep, he comes out anytime day or night to talk to you!
Me: oh well that might be what's so screwed up about him. The dude is constantly brain dead exhausted.
@light you say "can always choose another instance" as if that's trivial. But it amounts to a much more serious banning than being removed from PLC when there are other options to replace that.
This is exactly an example of how BlueSky is more decentralized than Fediverse.
Fediverse requires that connection to an instance which can ban you while ATProto doesn't. It provides alternatives to prevent that centralization.
@literalgrill ATProto means the ban isn't universal, though.
That's ATProto showing that it doesn't have the problem you seem to think it has.
It's worth noting that in the recent #BlueSky vs #Fediverse drama, the fundamental complaint was that BlueSky wasn't centralized enough, so some people are coming to Fediverse seeking that centralization.
For the years of talk about how BlueSky isn't decentralized like Fediverse, those folks were always wrong, and this is another case illustrating their getting that backwards.
Fediverse is centralized around instances. BlueSky is decentralized down to users. Of the two, BlueSky is the decentralized option.
Whether that's good or bad is a separate matter.
Basically, one idea behind BlueSky is to decentralize everything including moderation.
Some users raised a stink that moderation wasn't centralized and strong enough, so the CEO called them out on it saying it was weird to go to a decentralized platform and complain that it wasn't centralized.
Those users started calling him names over that, pretty much unintentionally proving his point.
We need to be clear: people that we elected set up this Court. Presidents and senators nominated, confirmed, and appointed these justices.
Blaming shadowy dark money conspiracies only excuses those elected officials from their responsibility in this. It lets them hold on to power and reputation as they point blame elsewhere for their own doings.
Don't like the makeup of the #SCOTUS? Fine, make sure to never reelect any of the folks who were around through the multiple terms of office that lead to it.
AND never forget that RBG was openly proud of her strategic retirement that ended up backfiring.
@stevevladeck.bsky.social that's not a problem, though.
They equally didn't analyze it here, so the same result will be appropriate under the same analysis or lack thereof.
Disrupt as many lives as possible, as quickly as possible? Give us a break.
This kind of sensationalism really loses her the rhetorical high ground. It's not the way a serious person writes in official documents.
She's not honestly framing the issue at hand, and it's once again not clear that she knows how any of this appellate functioning works.
@renwillis I know, that's the funniest part!
@sharan But the article is pretty off base. It seems to confuse the author's personal opinions with technological design, as if denying that an airplane can fly on account of it not being painted the color the person likes.
Yes, BlueSky is an alternative with a functional protocol that is working as a functional, technological and operational alternative everyday of the week.
From a technical standpoint BlueSky works. We can see it working. I really don't know why the author would try to say otherwise even if he doesn't like something personal with some of the people managing the project.
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
volkris's choices:
