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
*Now* seeing or *not* seeing?
Well if it helps, the Secret Service protection operates "Under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security," not under orders from the person being protected.
So really, at most it would come down to a disagreement between Biden's cabinet officials, that #Biden himself would ultimately settle.
To emphasize the important part: the #SecretService does not operate on its own, and definitely doesn't answer to #Trump so at the end of the day Biden gets to say how the protection would be continued if the complication of prison came up.
Oh, these media sources are really enjoying the clicks that they are getting from stirring the pot.
The drip drip drip is going to continue song as they continue making money off of it, regardless of anything actually happening in either branch of government.
Well, it's not the most unreasonable thing to complain that it makes for a harder user experience to have to make such choices.
Yes, arguably choice is good, as it gives a user options that may better suit his preferences.
But we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss choice paralysis or the cost in time and effort it takes to weigh choices, even if we decide that on balance, it's better.
I mean, of course he would.
The indictments were all so predictably beneficial to his campaign, that he'd use to help garner support of the public.
It's one reason to be more skeptical of their benefit.
Oh, I'm pretty sure that's exactly the type of person who fled Twitter throwing accusations of the founder being fascist the whole way out the door.
A significant part of the immigration to Fediverse was exactly that sort of person.
Right, because we saw that so many of those ideas made sense when a public health emergency shifted the balance between their upsides and downsides, but they were unsustainable.
They couldn't last... so they didn't.
It makes for a headline capturing conspiracy theory, but it's just not practically realistic.
For one thing, it's pretty much impossible to hold together such a coalition for those political generations. We've already seen positions change just over the past couple of decades, not to mention what would be required to really modify the Constitution in ways without broad consensus.
When I browsed it I didn't see many sources stating that Trump knew, though, unless I missed it.
There were a lot of people who told him things, but that doesn't mean he actually believed them.
That question of his believing his detractors is unfortunately critical to the case on which they chose to indict him, though, so it might be difficult to prove.
There's this bizarre thing that happens all too often where a press report lays out some facts and then a conclusion that doesn't merely give context for the facts or a certain interpretation of the facts but instead outright states the opposite of the facts that were just presented.
I generally see this happen from outlets that aren't exactly top tier sources of #journalism and I end up wondering whether the reporter is intentionally misleading their audience, and if so intentionally applying a strategy whereby simple spin would be noticed but outright contradiction would fly under the psychological radar.
It's a phenomenon akin to a reporter saying it is currently daytime, but instead of discussing how much the clouds may or may not be blocking the sun, instead asserting that it is dark because the sun set a while back.
The sort of thing really does contribute to people in society having such different ideas about what is verifiably true. And it's just so strange to see.
It kind of reflects the way democracy works: we grant voters the ability to shape their government, even when what they vote for seems pretty darn questionable or even against their own interests.
If the people want a convict to be president, well... there ya go.
Except that the actual quotes say the opposite, as Archer outlined specific examples of Joe Biden being involved in the business.
It's not a contradiction: it's directly confirming the claims.
What? The US didn't decide to privatize space. In fact it entered into international agreements with the exact opposite focus, preventing governments from nationalizing space.
So SpaceX controls SpaceX satellites. There's nothing strange about that. And any other firm is welcome to lunch its own satellites under its own control should it want to.
This is stretching hard to try to make a dramatic narrative where there really isn't one.
Anyone have a translation?
The ironic thing is that people are so obsessed with hating on the guy that they make it all about him in the process.
It's just a constant drumbeat, and it promotes his continued existence on the political scene.
The problem is that the indictment they brought had to avoid first amendment issues, so all they had left was this really weak case that sort of falls apart under examination.
So the headline is right, the indictment is not a 1st Amendment case, and instead it's kind of nothing, a case involving somebody following the laws as they are set out, inconveniently to the administration that wants to attack their political rival.
@TomShafShafer sure, and it's social media, so of course you can post whatever you want to on it, talk about whatever you want to, but just while you're doing it, be aware of that you are feeding #Trump, supporting his campaign by giving him attention, keeping him on the minds of his supporters, and encouraging them to vote for him because that is how trolls work.
I know, it's just a drop of water in the ocean, but it is doing your own small part to promote his presidential campaign.
And I know, it's probably venting, but just be aware of that the venting does help to promote him for another term of presidency.
Just keep in mind that a troll like Trump thrives on attention, WANTS attention, so talking about him is giving Trump exactly what he wants.
His campaign would be a non-starter if he didn't have so many people yelling about him, because he can't run on his actual record.
Who ignored him? He was on the front pages of every paper for years!
Everybody talked about him constantly, far more than was warranted, speculating and pointing fingers and generally just giving him exactly the attention that he wanted.
I don't know how you can say ignoring him is how we got saddled with his presidency when he was so clearly the opposite of ignored this whole time.
But you might be missing the value proposition for that theoretical buyer.
They wouldn't buy the instance without some value that makes the purchase worthwhile to them, and the ability for users to move to other instances should they provide a poor experience after the purchase is yet more reason that they wouldn't make the purchase for bad reasons.
On the other hand, if a VC buys a major instance and provides a better experience for users, well more power to them!
A purchase is not necessarily a bad thing.
A purchase can also provide resources and leadership that can work for users too.
That's fair, and yeah I thought it was kind of a close call, and I did have to think a little long to come up with that scifi angle :)
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:
