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
But the transcript showed that Joe Biden allowed himself to be used by his son to profit off of the promise of access to his office.
The transcript revisits this repeatedly, nailing it home.
So no, according to the transcript the calls to Dad we're not just about family and fishing.
It's not so simple as they would lose their readership and reach and the functionality of the Twitter website.
But this is the huge difference between restricting versus declining to promote.
Just because starlink isn't supporting some operation doesn't mean it is restricting that operation, it's just not participating in it.
It's a critical factual difference.
But it's not a patch. It's an entire separate layer with separate value and separate use cases.
It's like, TCP is not a patch on IP. The two work together, and they both do different things, just as lightning works with Bitcoin and does different things.
Feel free to block! That is, after all, how this platform works. If you are not interested in hearing voices outside of your echo chamber you are entirely empowered to block those voices. It's 100% up to you.
But when I go and look at the underlying direct evidence, it doesn't match what is being claimed here. And that is why this is not particularly compelling to me.
When the issue is what I can see with my own eyes versus what other people are grousing about, well I have to go with what I can see with my own eyes, and I would encourage everyone else to review with their own eyes as well.
But that's election of electors, not election of the president, entirely different thing.
By law election of the president happens later on, and that is what this indictment both recognizes and misses, and the contradiction within the indictment is so key to why it is a sham.
But we see how from the way things played out that that absolutely didn't happen, so if it was the plan ever, it was never the plan in any substantial way.
So no.
No, it's the same old.
A weak indictment that half the country will respect and the other half won't and that a jury might or might not agree with base largely on political factors.
It's a damn shame we are at this point in the country.
I think you're right. It will be interesting to see what primaries start to say when people start actually punching their ballots.
I'm pretty annoyed that I expect a bunch of people to vote for Trump not because of Trump himself but as a vote against these charges being brought against him.
Well right.
And McDonald's is free to ignore customers and start offering hamburgers without hamburger. But they're not going to sell many of those.
And then it all comes down to what voters want, and if voters don't like what a party is offering they won't vote for them, it's all up to the voters.
I just note how ad hominem this is.
No actual position or argument is cited or criticized or disputed. It's just plain throwing mud at individuals.
It's not very compelling, or at least, I hope it's not.
I mean, the voters are doing the nomination!
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
It sounds like you're saying these other conspiracy theories weren't involved in whatever conspiracy theory you think this administration is using to charge Trump.
But I just honestly just don't understand your comment the way it was phrased.
It seems like you just brought up a bunch of irrelevant stuff to say it was irrelevant.
The problem is that the allegations set forth in the indictment are factually inconsistent.
The conspiracy theory was ridiculous from the beginning, and it looks like this was the best they could do with it, and it just doesn't factually hold together.
They accuse the guy of knowing something that he probably didn't know before it was even possible to know it, both assuming that he was smart enough to know, which I don't think he was, and that he was a time traveler, able to see the future, which I definitely don't think he was able to do.
Trump is a moron, but he definitely did not know that he had lost an election that hadn't happened yet.
I just see it as an extension of all of the impeachments. It's just a lot of people are done with boys crying wolf.
It's no surprise that this was coming. It's not huge news. It's just part of a political game at this point, and a lot of people just aren't that interested in the political game.
I'm actually more curious as to how you read that.
I haven't looked up the contacts of her statements, but how do you see it?
I've heard Tim Scott trying to score political points based on this. And I don't care what the political side is, if a person is wrong he is wrong.
Even Republicans can be wrong, believe it or not 🙂
Even Republicans trying to score political points.
YES! I am looking at exactly what is being taught and what is being proposed, and I am not looking at any sort of theory behind why they would teach it, or any theory of motivation or conspiracy or any other abstraction.
I honestly don't care why they would be teaching something true. All I care about is that they are teaching something true.
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:
