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
@nat What in the world?
We are watching the government function. The reason we tell people to call their representatives is because government is functioning toward different outcomes than we would prefer.
It's just foolish to say we do not have a functioning government when the functioning government is the problem that we want to address.
The Supreme Court ruled the opposite of that, ordering that prosecution of the president and his goons for their actions continue.
Yes, there are a whole lot of politicians misleading the public about what happened, but we need to stop reelecting those jerks and call out the misinformation.
The Supreme Court ruling is public record, and they need to stop seeking power on the back of misleading the public.
One of the big reasons there are no cameras is because they fear cameras would lead to performing for the public instead of argument focused on the law.
We actually don't need to see these hearings. Why would we? These aren't our elected officials, that's the legislative branch.
The Supreme Court issues it's rulings in public, and only those rulings really matter. It really doesn't matter what happens in these arguments because only the rulings have effect, and the rulings are based on a ton of things that have nothing to do with these arguments anyway.
I'd even say they should stop releasing audio of the arguments, or put them on a year delay or something like that. All too often we hear folks in these events seem to start making political speeches when that's not how this works.
@n1xnx If you understand the argument it makes perfect sense. In fact it would be nuts to rule the other way.
District drawing is fundamentally political. That is just the truth of it. The Supreme Court merely acknowledges the fact of how the United States is structured, and has been structured, and will continue to be structured unless we go through constitutional amendment to change it.
You can question the sanity, but be ready to understand the answer. No, they are not insane, they are laying out the argument behind their conclusion for us all to see.
@Nonilex that example cuts the other way, though.
The history of Roe v Wade was long and problematic showing the contrast between settled thought and tenuous approaches.
For better or worse, the law before the court right now is in the tenuous category, just like Roe v Wade was.
@popcornreel it's not true at all that section two is the one section that keeps alive voting rights.
Congressional regulation of voting rights is alive and well. It's just that they can't do it in a way that violates the Constitution.
We are, of course, always able to amend the Constitution to allow this sort of discrimination if we want. I just don't think the country has a lot of interest in sanctioning it, though.
@Nonilex The understanding that the 14th amendment prevents discrimination based on race has pretty broad buy-in from across the political spectrum.
To describe it as conservative is a bit off considering how many liberal type folk would take that position as well.
@Lana remember, all districting maps in the United States are gerrymandered. That is just the reality that we need to start with.
In fact, a lot of the legal mess in the US around this topic is that it is arguably legally required that they be gerrymandered. The federal VRA requires it.
The question is not whether it's gerrymandered, the question is how much and for what purpose and where the legal winds are blowing.
I just don't see how it's coherent.
Isolationism born out of non-isolationism? The one would defeat the other.
And that's not even getting into the assertion of capitalism being isolationist in the first place. It seems like the argument is self-defeating outside of the factual, but to go farther,
Capitalism is born of connection and social environments. Where does the capitol come from? Generally associating with others. Why bother organizing those resources in the first place? To provide value to others. Otherwise there's no value in the capital efforts in the first place.
So it's on two different levels that I find your perspective to be very tenuous. Both in terms of the argument and in terms of the premises that the argument is built on, it seems to fail on both levels.
Engagement with other people is at the heart of what capitalism teaches because transactions with others is both the mechanism and the goal. I don't know what you're talking about to assert otherwise.
volkris
boosted
tests are showing je ne sais quoi levels at 65%
(65%) ■■■■■■□□□□
@b I've been following Johnson for years, and the guy is really too smart to fall for a lot of the #Trump nonsense, but he does have to play the game as Speaker.
It's his job to represent the chamber that is dominated by stupid people who actually believe Trump's lines.
But the thing is, Johnson is smart enough to put little tidbits like this into his speeches to make fun of the #MAGA crowd in ways that would go over their heads.
I think this was one of those times when he's making fun of them, and they don't even know.
What's worse, a #DEI hire or #Trump hiring somebody he said was outright unfit because they sucked up?
#Conservatives were expressly proud of this.
#Trump: We hired this woman who wrote me a beautiful letter. I didn't think she had what it took for the job, but she wrote me a beautiful letter....
Right, the focus should be on the coding error, the mismanagement that led to this.
But to be clear people were not laid off due to a coding error. I don't know if it's better or worse, but people were told that they were laid off when they really weren't.
It might even speak to a situation where people who weren't laid off, workers that they wanted to keep, might quit because this kind of incompetence is the last straw.
But CNN is not doing any favors with misreporting the layoff part. It just makes people less likely to trust CNN.
Social control? Sounds like you just brought up a completely different topic.
But again, you say it's about being isolated but now it's about social control which is the opposite of isolation... I really think you need to think this thing through more, because it sounds like you're buying into some ideas that people are telling you that contradict each other.
It's pretty incoherent, especially with the individualism versus social dynamic it can't be both ways. And in the real world, it's not.
You're assuming that they know the consequences. These people are really really dumb, and they have some misguided theories about the consequences of their proposals.
They do care about consequences! The problem is, they don't know what the consequences will be.
Evidence of that is how often they shoot themselves in the feet by engaging in strategies that defeat their own interests.
If they knew what the consequences would be, they wouldn't do so much self-defeating stuff.
I really don't see how you can say capitalism told us that we're isolated individuals who compete to survive.
Heck, the very phrase is contradictory. If we're isolated, who are we competing against? If there's someone to compete against then we're not isolated!
But further, what's the point of organizing capital without interdependence to make something come from that?
No, interdependence is at the CORE of capitalism. Capitalism is necessarily all about interdependence and ecology as we organize resources into productive use.
The problem is that going nuclear and overriding the Democratic vote against proceeding to funding will lead to serious consequences, as it did when that option was taken with regard to judicial nominees.
The current state of the judiciary in the US came out of a party doing exactly this, overriding the minority party's traditional power of objection.
They CAN end the impasse by changing Senate rules, but blowing up that dam is a seriously consequential proposal.
(preface: I'm going to use language that's overstating, but only slightly)
Unfortunately, my experience on Fediverse is one of cheerleaders promoting Fediverse irrationally and demeaning BlueSky ignorantly (or dishonestly).
On one hand I hear people extolling that everything on Fediverse is light and grace, the technology is a gift from on high, and then they apply the pattern of having a solution in search of a problem as they wonder why everything from email to WiFi connected toasters aren't connecting.
On the other hand, they insist that BlueSky is nothing but X but worse, nobody uses it, and despite nobody using it there are a ton of racists posting there. Also, ATProto is an icon of a shadowy cabal of capitalists.
The whole treatment is factually empty, just true believers in Team Fediverse against Team BlueSky, numbers and technical reality be damned.
Unfortunately, I've seen that perspective a whole lot over the years, so all too many DO seem insistent on keeping their own bubbles instead of acknowledging reality.
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:
