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
Which is to say... the algorithm :)
How kbin presents comments is its algorithm for presenting comments.
Who's promoting an equivalence? Certainly not me, and if you're read any sort of equivalence into my posts then you have misinformed yourself.
These issues stand on their own, regardless of each other.
That each exists in the same reality doesn't mean they are or aren't equivalent. That's a strawman of your own creation.
@shsbxheb@fosstodon.org
I know that's the position that Kagan took, but I found it bizarre and factually lacking since she simply insisted that a common use of a word doesn't exist.
In my everyday experience adjacent has meant adjoining, and heck, adjoining is one of the first definitions that come up if you search for a definition for the word.
Kagan's opinion not only insists on an alternative definition being the right one, but it goes so far as to say this usage doesn't exist, despite the common experience saying otherwise.
So no, that argument doesn't really hold water.
Marking Sensitive because not everyone wants to see US political stuff
Well I do think they targeted him, again whether you think that targeting is good or bad is a separate question.
And part of the issue here is that by targeting him it plays into his rhetoric, jives with his constituency, that he was being targeted by some dark forces.
It's a tricky issue whether to go down this road or not.
On one side we have these kind of vague laws and prosecutorial discretion, and on the other side we have confirming Trump's whole argument that the government is out to get him.
Legally it is questionable and politically it is extra questionable because we are basically confirming the position of a guy who lives on drama.
Marking Sensitive because not everyone wants to see US political stuff
Well that's pretty much my point.
A lot of people don't see this police action as being punished, but it absolutely is, and that is something that folks need to come to terms with as they look at the world.
This is police action punishing somebody. Maybe it's for the best, maybe it's entirely deserved, but it is police action punishing somebody, and even if it's for the best, that is part of the story to come to grips with.
If you don't see this punishment as punishment, well, that's the issue. It is punishment being handed down from authorities and that needs to be reckoned with as we look at the situation.
... I'm liberal
Marking Sensitive because not everyone wants to see US political stuff
I don't think it really matters that much.
Personally I don't get behind this perspective that is demanding pounds of flesh, demanding that Trump be punished. I just don't really care about the guy.
And the case is not as solid as a lot of people think it is.
But even if it is a solid case and the judge acts inappropriately, well then there are appeals to address the judge messing things up. It'll be taken care of.
I just don't think we should be so obsessed with this in the first place.
Yeah, and I just think that we need to establish cultural norms to push back on that mindset.
So I just want to emphasize that that approach disempowers users, and if instances want to go down that path, fine, but I just want to make sure they are realizing that they are disempowering users in the process.
If instance owners and users are happy with that trade-off, okay. That's their choice. I just want to highlight that it is the choice they are making, making sure they are informed as they make it.
The problem is that it involves a rush to judgment, assuming that prosecutors are correct, siding with the police effectively, instead of considering that maybe, just maybe, cops aren't always on the right side as they make their accusations.
Wow, hastility to organize labor? Way to misread the rulings.
Marking Sensitive because not everyone wants to see US political stuff
Well firstly, keep in mind that you are sort of making an ad hominem attack. You are attacking the person instead of the argument.
But to answer your question, the US has systems of appeals so that even if a particular judge does misbehave there are other levels to address such misbehavior.
Well I guess that kind of gets tricky in the scene where people are so opposed to algorithms.
Mastodon uses the algorithm of the fire hose just throwing all of the content at the user, well, here's a bunch of content, and it gets thrown at the user.
It's giving the people what they ask for, for better or worse.
It's a weird headline seeing as this is an executive branch matter, so talking about the legislative branch is kind of off topic.
I think it's so important that we need to establish a norm where users have the power and instance operators only block other instances as a nuclear option, as a last resort where the instance is a threat to the fundamental infrastructure of the system.
Normatively I highlight that if an instance operator blocks some other instance, that deprives their users of the agency to decide for themselves whether they want that block to happen or not.
I really think that #Fediverse should have been more user-oriented instead of instance oriented, but through our norms we can partially address that decision.
volkris
boosted
(please boost)
Okay...... WHY is our instance fediblocked in the first place? and why does that include our matrix instance getting removed from joinmatrix because "they decided to deem us as controversial"??
Our instance is a non-extremist, leftist comfy instance that accepts everyone, we have nearly 1000 users and I don't really understand why we are getting blocked everywhere. The worst thing is that there is no reason behind this and nobody is able to give us a single reason about why the """"council"""" decided to block us. This is stupid.
I'm considering buying a new domain at this point. We've been on fedi with based.social and miruku.cafe since 2020, and I've been using fedi since 2018 and this is just nonsense, I'm really pissed off. (meow)
@shsbxheb@fosstodon.org
From Biden's own mishandling of classified documents through accusations that he participated in bribery schemes, there are some really questionable stuff going on with the guy.
Maybe all of it is false. Maybe all of it can be explained away. But it is at least questionable, and worth looking into.
But that's exactly my question, HOW is it incompatible?
I was looking for specifics as to your disagreement, and just saying it's incompatible doesn't support your argument.
How specifically is it incompatible? That's what I'm asking about.
I mean it's apples and oranges. The one does not have to do with the other.
Are people willing to reelect Biden even though he has done some really questionable things? I don't know. We will find out. That's why we have elections
Yeah, but however we want to judge it, for better or worse, this seems to be how humans are.
Just based on real world experience, it's an empirical question, whether we like it or not, and I don't like it, a whole lot of business and correspondence and organization and progress is made when humans meet in person, often with booze involved.
Again I reiterate that I don't like this observation, but it seems to be pretty solid in my experience and also in the experiences of so many others who keep going back to this well
It is what it is even though you and I might not like it to be this way. And we can't deny it just because we wish it was otherwise.
Well that's what I'm trying to ask you! 🙂
I'm trying to ask you where you think the majority ruling went wrong, so why do you think this is wrong?
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:
