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
There are a lot of problems with proposals like those, ranging from uncertainty arising from the lottery through issues of coequal branches and judicial independence.
Really, we need better civics education and press coverage ahead of everything else. Thanks to misinformation folks don't understand what the SCOTUS does or how the legal system operates anyway.
Even that headline is false.
Sometimes Trump's most ardent supporters admit that the guy has a pattern of hitching himself to whatever cause looks like it's already going to win, so he can claim the success of other people.
The primary results from yesterday seem to be a fine example of that.
#ClayAndBuck ― News is #Trump just endorsed #Paxton for senate. Looks like Paxton's campaign showed Trump polling figures saying Paxton was going ...
We know it wasn't initiated by Trump because it was being talked about and put into place long before he glommed onto it.
Remember, don't give Trump credit for leadership. It's just his thing to hitch his wagon onto whatever looks like it's going to win so he can claim to be on the winning team, even if he undermines the effort.
But yes, it was following the rules. We may or may not LIKE the rules, but the rules where there for these states to follow.
No, that's not what the SCOTUS ruled.
The ruling emphatically BACKED the ability of voters, including protected minority voters, to elect the candidate of their choice by reinforcing the VRA:
"A §2 plaintiff in a vote dilution case must show that a districting scheme denies members of a racial group the same opportunity as other voters to elect the candidates they prefer."
This was core to their ruling, and it was reinforcing the VRA, relying heavily on it.
What the Court really struck down was a lower court order that imposed an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The lower court was wrong, and this appeal corrected it.
Mother Jones is not a reliable source.
Its business model is all about getting people outraged, so they click more and align with their causes.
They're manipulating you with misinformation. Always go to primary sources, and you'll see how outfits like MJ are peddling conspiracy theories that are really bad for society.
You're missing a couple of things, especially that part of being in that cult (or echo chamber) involves obliviousness to their losses.
They literally don't know they're losing races. Their preachers preach every day about how much they're winning races.
What you're saying here gives them too much credit. But it's also ahistorical, as the mid-decade redistricting started long, long ago. Remember, the high-profile LA case has been in the works for many years, and the redistricting behind it for years longer than that.
But all of this is fair because it's followed the rules of the system, just as a play in baseball might be fair so long as it was within the rules. They don't blow up the system, they use it.
Maybe the rules themselves need reform, but that's a different question.
Meh. He often gets the backstory wrong with his news rants, so I really wish he'd just go back to straight comedy.
When they dip into hard news it anchors the comedy down to annoying stuff like factual acuracy that matters.
The answer is that in this specific case they won fairly. They didn't try to blow up the system because they had the winning position.
Yes, in other cases the idiots were sleepwalking into knocking the system over, but that broken clock is right twice a day, and this was a case where they stumbled into a win by the rules.
Well, it's like saying fans give the umpire at a baseball game the authority to say whether it was a ball or a strike.
Yes, you can quibble over whether to trust the umpire when you're really, really insistent that it was a bad call. The fans decide whether to believe you over the umpire, so the fans give or don't give that authority. Sure.
But at the end of the day, the umpire still has the call that matters to the outcome.
If you read the Supreme Court opinion, that's not at all what they ruled. It also ignores that a lower court had also ruled the election map unconstitutional.
That's the contradiction that the Supreme Court had to settle, two lower courts giving LA contradictory rulings.
The article also misses that redistricting didn't start with Trump. As usual, he just glommed onto an effort already underway to claim popular credit.
That may be the case, but then what?
If we lean into the nihilism where there's no hope in the body politic, then it kind of promotes the conclusion of, why should these politicians bother fighting?
I mean, most of the politicians are manipulable morons--they wouldn't know how to fight if they wanted to. The executive branch is definitely full of such people, so even if the legislators faught their laws would hardly be executed.
The way out is to say the US system puts power in the hands of the voters to get the government they vote for, whether they're morons or not.
Yep, the way package repos are used these days promotes that kind of thing, which brings me to my reaction:
"This is just the price of building modern web apps,” sounds completely correct, and it's just a shame that this IS the price we all pay for what the industry regards as the form of a modern web app.
It's caveman stuff to not wire in all of that stuff.
...and so cavemen had faster web browsing even on ancient computers :)
The problem is, that's the completely opposite of what the Supreme Court said in their ruling. They emphatically said overt dilution of Black vote is absolutely illegal.
It was the heart of their ruling.
So the problem is that these protests rooted in claims that informed folks know to be false just end up looking foolish and misinformed.
It's like a protest saying that our government needs to address the flat earth issue. The protesters won't make much headway.
And in this case it serves to sully the whole idea of Selma.
I don't think this is a good application for ActivityPub.
Bookmarks are naturally supposed to stick around while AP is focused on a stream of events that are naturally ephemeral.
Permanent with a momentary aspect vs momentary with a permanent aspect.
Right, this sort of thing should be part of how the reader crafts their experience personally, not up to the poster trying to engage with the vastly different individuals who might or might not ever be exposed to it.
It actually sounds like a great application for AI. Maybe it can't order the shirt I want from an online shop, but it can recognize eyes for me if I don't want them in my feed!
But the operation of the poster and the operation of the reader are independent. Only the poster knows exactly what he wants to express, and only the individual reader knows exactly what he wants to read.
If the poster wants to label a CW, then by all means, that's part of his expression! If the reader doesn't want to see something, then by all means, he should be empowered to filter it out to suit his wants.
So for example, a challenge about what does and doesn't count as eye contact? No, I wouldn't challenge that but rather leave it up to the individual reader. What counts as eye contact to one might not to another, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
It's great, actually, showing the power each person has to customize their own experience.
It's just another case of actions that are largely performative.
They'll waste resources making a list for the sake of showing their base that they did something.
I think this is very noteworthy:
"Former President Joe Biden’s disastrous decision to run for reelection, and his stubborn refusal to step aside"
His decision to step aside? As if it was his choice? NO. The party needs to take responsibility for adopting him as their candidate. They absolutely didn't have to.
Biden was clearly a bad candidate, but the party chose him anyway. And they skipped a primary to pivot to an even worse one.
If we're conducting an autopsy of the party, this needs to be shouted loudly to hold the party accountable and demand change from them.
Folks yelling about the uniparty don't seem to notice the stark differences between the two parties in the US.
Yes, there are points of consensus throughout the US population that drives parties to some overlap, but it's just nutty to be yelling uniparty given what we see on a day to day basis.
That's pretty much the opposite of what was described above.
Above was described hiding pregnancy and inappropriate medical care, not being open and seeking correct care.
I don't think you got it.
That shows how so many are focusing on the wrong branch of government here.
If they want law changed then they have to look to the legislative branch, that makes law, rather than the judicial branch that is bound by how the legislators we elect legislate.
@thenewoil
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:
