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
No. Gerrymandering was required by law long before Trump was on the scene, and courts have been addressing it for generations. The laws, and practical realities, would remain long after Trump has wandered off.
Gerrymandering cannot be ended by creating independent election commissions. That just puts those election commissions in charge of the gerrymandering, for better or worse.
But let's not kid ourselves. Gerrymandering is a completely unavoidable factor in our election systems. We need to face that so we can manage it.
Well, it's more be understanding of the Court.
There are very good reasons for these two actions between TX and CA. Both are reasonable if one understands the background.
Yeah, it's been sad to see that over the past decade or so a lot of otherwise respectable experts, particularly in legal fields, have seemed to give up and tell pop audiences what they want to hear.
Luttig might be one of them.
Because this is utter nonsense and completely divorced from what the SCOTUS actually said.
@foxmental.bsky.social SCOTUS only works in public.
That's key to how the Supreme Court functions. Its rulings are public; its binding opinions as well.
There are no secret agreements. There can't be, or else they wouldn't count.
Well the main thing that too many people have bought into is that Bitcoin wastes that much power. That gets it backwards.
No, the Bitcoin system itself could run on a solar cell. It's a fairly efficient method of accomplishing its goals of trustless transaction recording.
The rest of the power isn't Bitcoin's waste but rather what people are paying to use the system. It's effectively customer revenue.
To say Bitcoin wastes this ton of power is like saying Taylor Swift wasted $13 million since fans paid that for her concert.
It's a descendant of feudalism in the same way that modern agriculture is a descendant of superstitious practices to ensure a good harvest:
It shed the control factor because that wasn't scaleable or sustainable as the world moved on.
It is BECAUSE it's not about control that it descended feudalism, rather insisting on voluntary exchange, which works much better in the modern context.
So capitalism, or at least things that aren't capitalism, is born out of bad things, and things that aren't capitalism generally comes from exploitation.
You see the problem with that perspective? It criticized capitalism for things that aren't capitalism!
Heck, capitalism is ANTI-exploitative as it insists on mutually beneficial, voluntary exchange.
MORE capitalism would have prevented some of the concerns you raise.
@hamishcampbell @info
@dougiec3 wrong branch of government.
Well, if you listen to mainstream conservative media, it's more of a moral panic than a want for control.
They harp on it every day as a panic, a generation lost to mind control basically.
Akhil Amar has been talking about this topic recently, so you don't have to go back to 1987. He's even been laying out application to current events.
Basically, NO, the federal Congress doesn't have to authorize states to pass legislation. States can do what they want legislatively.
So if an ICE agent breaks a state law, then regardless of what the federal Congress says, the state can bring charges against the agent in state courts.
Then it's up to the agent to show that they were actually carrying out an authorized, *constitutional* function of the federal government.
If they weren't, then they get thrown to the state.
@freeschool Well, different people have VASTLY different views about what Social should be about or what experiences they want. Some don't realize the tradeoffs they're making.
For example, I personally hate the Twitter-style microblogging format specifically because it impedes deep dives. Other people insist on it without necessarily realizing they're losing the deep dive.
Or the person might simply be apathetic to deep dives in the first place.
That's at the technological level. On the social level, folks who hate Facebook-style platforms don't develop the durable connections that engender deep discussion.
In short, a lot of people make technological and social choices to avoid deep discussion, and while that's not my style, they have to follow their own paths.
Personally, I like to see technology that empowers people to make that choice.
@denisedwheeler.bsky.social That's not in the report you shared.
I mean even the report says that it can't corroborate its claims, but even then it doesn't even claim that Thomas was protecting the guy.
@faab64 I wouldn't look at the Israelis. I would look at conservatives here in the US.
Trump already said he would attack Iran if they killed people, and they killed people, so mainstream conservatives are saying he has to attack them now.
Trump generally follows whatever the mainstream conservatives are saying, so regardless of what the Israelis want, that's where I would focus.
Well, what do you THINK he's hiding?
@Lionesslady @stevevladeck.bsky.social
I think in the past such screenshots would have been either attached or referenced by link out of fear that they'd break long-established systems that expect only text.
I figure even today that's a risk.
Howdy! My take is that, I came to QOTO in part because of the improvements they made to Mastodon when Mastodon devs were stomping their feet against improvements they didn't like.
I figure Freemo just has other things going on, but I do feel like some of the QOTO features have regressed over time. It's not critical for me, though.
Yeah, it's always been annoying that certain accounts can't be read from here due to blocking, but eh, again not critical for me personally.
I see the blocking as a sign that QOTO is doing something right, as their reasons for blocking are exactly where we'd part ways anyway.
My use case here is just to vent. If other people see what I write, great! If not, that's OK too.
This has long-been the depth of argument in mainstream #GOP thought with a few outright calling to start a war because, well, they're saying mean things.
They really are children.
And reference to the article, The President Who Never Grew Up
#BrianKilmeade:We cannot let these Iranian mullahs keep saying bad things about our leaders, and that's why #Trump needs to attack the country. #U...
@AGT ARE they worth a read?
It's like fact-checking a kindergartner saying dumb things about dinosaurs or something.
We all know Trump is full of it and can barely put a coherent sentence together, so why is it worth fact checking that? It's just nonsense.
@faab64 No need to go into that kind of conspiracy theory.
You can just watch the Fox News folks say things on the air and Trump follows them a couple days later.
There's no evil Christian Zionist nonsense here. Just a bunch of people who don't know what they're talking about, and Trump following along.
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:
