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
Can you quote a mainstream conservative saying otherwise?
Again, it seems like you're arguing against a stance that isn't being taken, arguing against a strawman.
@ghosttownoli@mastodon.gamedev.place
Well, what work is that?
You see how there's a difference between saying slavery was good and saying that slaves developed skills that could be applied for their personal benefit?
Those are absolutely not the same positions.
But that just gets me back to wondering what your goal is? If it really is true that people who don't agree with you cannot have their minds changed, Why bother writing all of that that just makes you sound kind of nuts?
If the world really is so futile and divided into people who have been enlightened as you have versus those who haven't, without particular chance to redeeming folks who aren't as informed as you are, why bother reaching out at all?
The article said otherwise, but okay let's go with you, what conservatives said slavery is good?
Courts will decide, but we will as well.
Just like anything else you are welcome to have your own opinion, and in such a politicized area, everybody naturally will.
In this case a huge factor comes down to weather or not you believe the prosecutor has been able to prove that Trump is a time traveler. Was he able to go back in time from after the election to before? Because if not, the whole case falls apart.
I repeat, What are you talking about?
And I will clarify, keep in mind that "they’re trying to take over our government right now!" is a really out there phrase to use, if you didn't realize how it came across.
Like, that sort of thing is the ravings of a crazy person.
@SallyStrange@strangeobject.space
The thing is, fascist regimes gained support of the people for reasons. It wasn't just random.
When you start handing power to others to solve problems, well, it goes in that direction, and that is even in cases where you might think the trade-off is worth it.
When you hand people power to control what information you get, what you see, that is a bit dangerous even if you are personally willing to accept the danger.
Likely simply not there under legal and constitutional constraints.
The charges were very weak on factual bases, and chatter says that it was the best they could do because other avenues didn't really have legal standing in the first place.
Dude, your specific example refuted the discussion, showing that it was off base!
Well it's an issue of no perfect solution, only trade-offs with downsides.
In this case the alternative is empowering somebody else to censor the content that you see.
Are they going to do a good job? Or are they going to censor things in ways that you don't actually like? Or are they going to actually take advantage of that power that you are giving them to censor things in ways that intentionally manipulate you?
There are serious downsides to handing other people control over what you see, even if the motivation might be reasonable. It still takes a big risk.
@folkerschamel @SallyStrange@strangeobject.space @steve
Fediblock Nonsense
I don't think it's so much that they allow it as they have a general rule against interfering in the activities of other courts without really clear malfunction, and in this case it looks like judge after judge, court after court ruled against the guy, leaving little room for the SCOTUS to act and throw out all of those rulings.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere because it looked like the applicant had his day in court, and they didn't see room to override all of those other judges.
What in the world are you talking about?
You're missing that those two months occurred BEFORE the legal process to count the EC votes.
It was a general range of time before the election, not following the election, that he supposedly lost, before it occurred.
You're missing the big issue with this accusation, that the guy supposedly refuted an election that hadn't happened yet, by the indictment's own admission if not general knowledge about how the process works in the US, by law.
Fediblock Nonsense
@CatHat You misunderstand.
This is not about blocking Nazis. They are talking about blocking servers.
Right, maybe, but with so much of the process, reviewer after reviewer, agreeing that his case didn't merit overturning, it's easy to see why SCOTUS didn't feel like this was an exceptional moment to interfere in the state proceedings.
I haven't seen any convincing claim of an error in the process that doesn't come down to mere disagreement with the outcome.
It sounds like the applicant had his day(s) in court, regardless of what you or I or a Justice might think about how the courts ruled.
IMO, I gripe that the protocol is not beautifully designed at all :)
Setting that aside, though, generally when you search for a hashtag through your home account/instance, the instance doesn't search all of fediverse for it, but only searches through the limited number of posts that have happened to be shared to that one instance that you're on.
That really limits the horizon of content that is available for it to show you, but it's how the system was designed to function.
To put it a different way, each instance only subscribes to feeds that its users have expressed interest in, and so each can only sort through posts in those limited feeds. That's what you're seeing, the window that your particular instance has on the larger network.
@ramin_hal9001@emacs.ch
Fediblock Nonsense
Personally, I go farther than that: I would only block a server for infrastructure reasons, if a server is causing a technical threat to the system, flooding messages or whatever.
Blocking an instance over content is a technical solution to a social problem.
Throttling is fine. You don't have to promote an instance's content in your own public stream. You don't have to actively promote the problematic instance.
But beyond that, I'd prefer to focus on empowering users to shape their own experiences, to shape the content they see as they wish, and put only technical issues in the hands of server operators.
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:
