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
The thing to keep in mind is that those claims have been circulating in mainstream conservative media all the while. These administration speakers are merely latching onto popular conservative ideas.
They are following, as they often are, not leading. It's a symptom, not a cause.
These dangerous claims are coming from the grassroots, in other words. It's really important to recognize that the problem is out there in the public, not coming top down from any individual officials.
@susankayequinn Oh they don't need your compliance. They have guns.
In fact, they love demonstrators because they know how to handle that. Demonstrators are playing their game. They know how to operate the riot gear; they know how to use tear gas; they know how to use videos of demonstrations in their propaganda.
No they love you demonstrating. You're playing into their hands.
The main thing is, stop reelecting the same idiots that can't effectively fix things. THAT is how to change the system. So many people demonstrating against bad policies did so right after reelecting and re-empowering the same lawmakers who supported those bad policies!
Problem is, that kind of analysis treats judges as if they were untethered from law, perhaps overlooking the role of our elected representatives in the system.
It could very well be that the judges aren't the problem, but we need to elect better lawmakers to make better laws for the judges to act on.
@PaulWermer What cases on international law have they ruled on that would support this?
Oh.
It's always funny how #Trump's biggest supporters laud him as a great communicator and then in their next breath rush to clarify what he just said, at least, as best as they can tell.
#BrianKilmeade: and we're going to make it clear that the United States isn't going to run #Venezula#USPolitics
With analytical brains like this setting US government policy, What could go wrong?
#SeanHannity:I know my show is big in Iran because that time I had a famous Iranian on my show it got big viewership there.#USPolitics
Mainstream #MAGA media today:
"We need to emphasize that #Venezuela isn't going to be like the war in Iraq!"
And then they go on to lay out how they're exactly the same.
These folks don't know their history, not even from a couple of decades ago, so they can't judge the present.
They are making major decisions based on factual inaccuracies, and that's why it's so important to recognize that.
It strikes me that this once again confuses working fine with working the way I personally want.
Yeah, our system gives the people what they want, and you know what, the people kind of suck. It's garbage in garbage out, to use the computer term. Just because we're getting really crappy results doesn't mean it's not working. It just means, well the problem with democracy is the people.
This system is working fine. It's doing exactly what it is supposed to do. And it's our fault for electing these people, and reelecting them, and putting this garbage in.
We need to stop re-electing these same representatives, because we're just telling the system that we once it to deliver us these results. So it does. Like it's supposed to.
Well, what of the Court's perspective that statute specifically withholds that authority? Specifically where do you think the Court gets the law wrong?
No, that kind of claim has been circulating in certain circles, but it really doesn't match when you actually sit down and read the rulings that have been coming out of the Court.
The Court has been pretty consistent in their arguments ruling for Trump and against Trump based on legalities.
But you have to actually read directly from the Court to avoid sensationalized stories that amount to conspiracy theories.
volkris
boosted
Forget your gay apparel; let's pass the mead!
How ‘Deck the Halls’ lost its ...
@drweb2 It's not a rare loss, and it's important to emphasize that.
The Trump administration loses pretty frequently, Trump himself is a loser, and the more we point that out the more he will be undermined in the eyes of his supporters.
To say it's a rare loss is to build the guy up as some kind of winner, it's how he got reelected.
@gmoke No, that's not how the US government is designed. Co-equal branches of government mean that Congress doesn't have authority over the Supreme Court.
So no, it would set up a conflict of interests if Congress tried to impose on the Supreme Court like that through such a council. It's unconstitutional.
@Lyle The thing to keep in mind is the difference between government force and social choice.
They are vastly different contexts.
It's one thing for us to enjoy the privileges of the wealth of the societies that we live in, but it's a completely separate thing to talk about policy makers at the top using force to impose political preferences on members of society.
@RachelThornSub they're not that competent.
Trump is not up to speed on this kind of thing. If he was he wouldn't have faced trial, and he wouldn't have been found guilty over really basic paperwork issues.
The thing to emphasize is how silly all of this looks, so Trump is losing whatever spot in history he ever had.
Always emphasize that Trump is a loser who can't manage his own business, not that he is some fascist who is getting things done.
That only buys into his support crowd.
@Teknevra I think you're missing that it's a huge value of Amazon that it is simple and streamlines everything for the shopper.
Fediverse is the opposite.
The value of Amazon is specifically that it is monolithic and centralized.
The way I see it, part of the answer to your question is that #Twitter itself wasn't very great. So other applications that are better might actually sort of transcend Twitter, being a worse copy of Twitter but a better application overall.
In other words, an application that is more powerful and has more features might be a worse copy of Twitter because it's more powerful than Twitter ever was.
@ElwoodCity honestly at this point Star Trek is in such a bad shape that the answer is no.
It doesn't have anything to do with CBS or its management.
Star Trek is not going to recover so long as people keep watching the slop.
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:
