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
I imagine the #Democrats have consulted their pollsters and come to a general agreement among themselves that this gridlock is for the best.
Whether they reached that agreement because they honestly fear #McCarthy or because they think this is a political cudgel they can use in cynical political rhetoric we can't really say.
Remember that at any moment the Democrats can resolve all of this by merely doing nothing. Should a couple of them just decline to actively vote, the matter is settled, and McCarthy wins.
It's not only that Democrats aren't crossing the aisle; it's that they are choosing to actively vote in a way that leads to this gridlock.
Keep in mind that once a Speaker is elected, the Rules of the House kick in and grant the Speaker very broad, discretionary powers through which he can promote his initiatives.
That's why everyone's fighting so hard against electing a Speaker they don't want to empower.
The negotiations are about how the Speaker will use his discretion, to see if they can find a compromise that will get things done later.
You're missing that democratic processes elected all of these representatives who are voting to keep the House deadlocked.
It's not pandering to anti-democratic forces on display here; it's democratic forces themselves representing voters who are very divided.
You've overlooking the political realities, though.
Without those pork barrel projects, it's not clear that NASA would have received even the funding that it got, as politicians weren't all that interested in diverting federal dollars away from their closer-to-home projects.
Democracy for the win!
If Mastodon is four times bigger than the rest of the Fediverse
combined, then that means to focus solely on Mastodon is to miss that other 20% of the universe.
So yep, it just goes to show that The #Fediverse is bigger than just #Mastodon!"
The unserious kooks will always have the same ability to vote against the next person the majority of their party might rally around.
Keep in mind that a lot of the reason Republicans support McCarthy is because the job of Speaker entails a whole lot of technical work behind the scenes, organizing schedules, understanding the rules, etc, that few representatives might possess.
If the unserious kooks might vote against anybody, then they might as well stick with the guy who they think has the skillset to do the job well.
That's not how the House of Representatives works, though.
The Rules of the House govern particularly what rank and file like these holdouts can do, which is part of why they're fighting so hard right now.
They know that once a Speaker is elected, they've lost a ton of their influence in the chamber, as the Rules kick in to restrain them.
Oh, in cases like these I don't spend too much time trying to track down the bug.
I just make the developers aware of the bug, and hopefully one of them will just know where the problem is without needing to look too hard.
The idea that Republicans like these don't want to see cuts in military spending often comes down to stereotype, though.
Many Republicans HAVE Been skeptical of military spending, calling for reexamination of where the money is going and criticizing lawmakers for spending too much on the military.
The holdouts here are annoyingly vague in what they're calling for, but they do seem to be echoing the Republicans who would like to see cuts.
Sounds like a bug. Report it?
ActivityPub requires that every actor have both an inbox and an outbox.
So yes, this would require a change to the AP standard.
That's a really ridiculous position seeing as these are representatives acting through the normal order and rules of the House.
Not to mention, acting with the complicity of the entire Democratic contingent which has voted in lockstep to maintain this gridlock rather than resolve it and begin the work of the House.
It's nothing like Jan 6th.
I mean, that's kind of the point, isn't it?
If the representatives of the people can't agree on how to spend enormous amounts of society's resources, then that really says something about whether it should be spent.
It's part of the checks and balances design of the system, making sure government remains accountable to the people.
@YourNeighbor57 @AmandaMarcotte
Fascism? What in the world?
The speaker fight is literally about democratic ideals of letting people vote for the direction they'd like their chamber to go, not top down imposition of will, with the headline holdouts insisting on even more checks on the authority of management, even more power for the people, so to speak.
Talk of Democrats "bailing them out" papers over the larger picture where they're choosing to keep the House shut down. Some Pyrrhic victory that is.
But at least they're sticking it to the meanies, right?
US Politics, Speaker of the House
*sigh* Insurrection? It really cheapens the word when it's thrown around so lightly like this.
No, this is not insurrection. This is how the system is SUPPOSED to work. When the people we elect disagree on the way forward we're supposed to stop and not proceed, as we'd be moving in a direction that doesn't represent a consensus of the people.
It's silly to describe this as chaos. This is nothing happening, neutrality, the opposite of chaos.
Anyway, at any point any of the vast majority of House members-elect can cross party lines and resolve this question. All the talk of "they" ignores that simple fact.
Ooof, this thread got long, but another use case came up, and I wonder what people might say about alternatives.
Someone asked about how to boost an image post but add alttext if the original posted didn't include it.
I was thinking, this is a great use for QT. Anyone have a solid workaround, though?
I'd say it's the exact opposite, because it's directly pointing to someone else's post, putting their post front and center.
On the other hand, I'd say people who suggest just linking to the other post, THAT seems to me to be making a new post all about them, with the original post something of an after thought that, meh, I guess you can go click to if you really want to.
To answer your question, I think that wades into tricky waters because it takes some trust to add alttext to someone else's images. It would likely seem as if the first poster made the alttext when it was actually added by someone else.
I would be a little surprised if there was a good way to do it now.
I COULD see a feature added to a client like Mastodon where a person could propose alttext, and the original poster could accept it, automatically putting out an edited post.
Sounds like a good idea to me!
And purely to opine:
Adding #Alttext sounds like a pretty good use for #QT on #Mastodon, since there's been so much talk about that lately.
Yeah, different voting methods are options, but there are complications as electing a Speaker is pretty different from electing a legislator.
It's key that a Speaker is an executive with discretionary, direct power over the voter, so the voter might want to negotiate with a candidate about how the power will be used, for example how many amendments a bill might have or the process for removing the Speaker, both issues that came up this week.
I'm not sure how practical it is to hold these negotiations with every candidate. It might be theoretically possible but just not doable in time, leaving the voters less able to shape the rules for their session.
I think it's one of those cases where there's no perfect way, but they work the best they can among non-ideal options.
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:
