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
No, you misunderstand his argument.
Firstly, it wasn't a question of overturning the election. The election hadn't happened yet, as it was legally scheduled to happen in January.
However, the Electoral Count Act, and various state laws, did provide Trump with legal opportunities to raise concerns over procedures that states used to pick their electors going into the election. Which he botched.
So his longtime legal advisors gave him legal advise that he was too stupid and ignorant to judge properly, so he really screwed things up.
But the fact remains: he was acting on legal advise about what laws said ahead of the upcoming January election, even if he really botched things in the process.
it's just about different people having different values, with some people placing a VERY high value on the concept of loyalty.
Compare it to the famously high valuation that the Fast and Furious franchise puts on family :)
Many folks of that mindset don't have blinders and are well-aware of Trump's issues, but they simply value loyalty as such a lofty ideal that they would remain loyal despite those issues.
@mastodonmigration @GottaLaff
I counter this by pointing out that so, so, so many people are completely wrong about what has been said and what happens in Congress even though C-SPAN televises that constantly over decades of time.
No, just as the cameras of C-SPAN have not managed to help people believe about the goings-on in Congress, having cameras in the courtrooms for these trials will not help people believe the verdict.
In fact I think they would do quite the opposite, as I am certain that the cameras would encourage people involved to play for the cameras, including Trump himself to be clear, which would only undermine peoples' trust in the eventual verdict.
So I absolutely think this article is so naive, so disproven by experience, but even more, I expect the entirely opposite result.
Putting cameras in the courtroom will only encourage the division that will lead to a lot of doubt in the verdict, no matter what it is, even ignoring the prejudice of this article.
The problem with that statement is that every single thing they do is only through the authority of Biden, in whom is vested the executive power of the federal government. It leaves him responsible for everything that's done, since it's all done under his ultimate purview.
If two of Biden's reportees are disagreeing about what Biden would have them do, then it's inescapably up to him to resolve the situation and clarify what he wants done.
It's no different from any run-of-the-mill disagreement where two employees are arguing about what the boss said to do. Well, it's up to the boss to work that out.
This strikes me as another well thought out critique of #Mastodon developers' choices.
And no, they're not able to just blame #ActivityPub for these things, at least not all of them.
Mastodon's Mastodon'ts. There are a few fundamentally broken things about how Mastodon posts work that are terrible vectors for abuse, as well as b...
Unfortunately, I just don't see Fediverse going in that direction.
Get ready for a nice long stay in a lifeboat :)
I wonder if he's trying to thread a needle by saying TECHNICALLY I'm not attacking him, only making factual claims and pointing out that other people have attacked him.
You know, "Hey, I'm not saying the Dark Side is a bad thing! Maybe you think it's good! But also, look at this major magazine who said he was bad. Hey, I'm not saying it; the magazine said it!"
Well, that's just how a proportion of the population is, a certain personality type basically, where the person values the concept of loyalty so highly that they will force themself to remain loyal pretty much no matter what.
It's not how *I* am and it sounds like you aren't either, but yep, I've known such people, and they also show up in research on interpersonal psychology.
@mastodonmigration @GottaLaff
Perhaps UI options that allowed users to be more opt-in if that's what they wanted:
"Don't show me anything from anyone I haven't followed" or "Only show content from people I've followed + local instance" for example.
Firstly, I think you're just a little off about underlying technical issues.
Yes, some of the criticisms come from the underlying protocol, but so many are right there in #Mastodon's choice to (for example) use or ignore metadata that's already included in #ActivityPub streams.
I wouldn't want to let developers pass the buck. They made these UI decisions, and presumably they will stand by them.
As for the exchange about rights of reply deletion, might I suggest instead of saying "what right do you have?" saying "how can you technically assure that I've deleted?"
I believe this is what you meant.
*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.
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:
