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
Well I don't think it's really interesting to specify, but it was a rental car and off the top of my head I don't remember what model it was. I want to say it was a Chevy? But I honestly don't remember.
When we started off the range was something like 600 mi but it made only something like 50 miles before it died.
So like I was saying, seriously a big malfunction.
You are incorrect, sir.
By law Congress is absolutely empowered to question and debate the certifications brought to it to determine whether the states did or did not legally properly certify a slate of electors.
That is the entire point of the law that was set in statute to resolve such questions.
So again, you seem to be begging the question, assuming the set of electors when the set of electors is the question that was on the table.
Fine! If the students aren't better served then they won't attend those schools, so the whole question is null.
Again, you're begging the question since Who is the real elector? is exactly the question that was to be adjudicated.
Again, the electors are only fake if you assume the end of the process having rejected them.
It's like a claim of innocence being fake only if the trial came up with a guilty conclusion.
It just doesn't make sense. It's not what the law provided for.
It's not a slate of fake electors at all. It is a slate of electors that would be entirely countable should the process judge them to be so.
To be clear, I absolutely say that in the end that slate was not the one to be counted. But that's why we have this process inshrined in law, to determine which slate is the one to be counted.
Having a different opinion on which one to count is part of the law, part of the process set out in law.
No obviously he was not entitled to hand pick his own slate of completely illegitimate electors. That is not the question. That is absolutely not what is being argued. I don't know why you keep returning to that thing that is not being argued.
I mean yes, the Biden administration is whipping that straw man as much as it can, but it is absolutely not the argument on the table.
Nobody at all is arguing that Trump could hand pick illegitimate electors.
So why in the world keep going back to that?
I just know a few teachers, and also a few students, who prefer the other environments.
I honestly don't know what you are saying here because it sounds like you are proving my point.
It sounds like you are saying that I don't recognize the diversity of interfaces and then you went on to talk at length about the diversity of interfaces.
You're missing that that entitlement was part of the objection process.
You're recognizing the legitimacy of the process but complaining about an element of the process.
That's what you're missing here.
You didn't realize that the VP can't do anything involving the 25th on his own...
I think you are looking at it backwards, though.
Each UI participating in Fediverse can do its own thing. Each UI does what it needs to do for its users and its goals regardless of anything else.
So if one client does things different from another that doesn't create a rift that is simply the way this works, with different clients displaying things differently according to different goals.
It's not a rift. It is an entirely expected difference of application.
Did you read the indictment for yourself? Because it does not support your position.
You're still falling into the circular argument.
You say the states certified the legit electors, but the exact question was whether the states had legitimately certified electors.
You're still assuming the answer to the very question that was being raised through this legal process, as the law set out, and had we all focused on the legal process this would largely be a non-issue.
But instead we allowed everybody to assume the answer instead of letting the legal process play out, which allowed a whole lot of people to point out the break from the legal process, and fed into this whole chaotic situation.
In short, your line of rhetoric right here plays into Trump's hands. It would be for better if we simply applied the law instead of engaging in the circular arguments that just fueled his rhetoric.
I really believe the guy would not be running again if we had simply applied the law.
I don't know about YouTube and TV but as I listen to mainstream conservatives reading their articles online and listening to them on the radio they absolutely decry the guy's faults.
Radio might be the best example because they take a lot of callers from across the country who all talk about how the guy is so imperfect even if they support him.
So yeah I think it sounds like you are only seeing a small sample in the YouTube and TV that you are watching.
Just goes to show, maybe don't treat anything Trump says as particularly reliable or intelligent or noteworthy?
Like, I really don't give a shit how Trump treats anybody. Why would anybody care how that moron treats anybody? Unless you're actually having dinner with him or something, which why?, but skipping right past that, stop giving a shit about what some moron thinks about things, is my opinion.
I don't really care whether Trump treats somebody as Satan or an angel or a toilet. It just really doesn't matter because he is not somebody to be so obsessed with.
I mean, do you have any particular argument to make your case?
Because right now it sounds like you are telling people what to believe without any evidence at all to support them.
Frankly, the Koch thing was always an overstated thing that certain media outlets used to generate headlines and attract clicks and, sadly, sort of mislead their readers.
This is not so much interesting turning on Kochs as it is they were never ever actually such allies as had been betrayed in the media, and it is a very very good reason that we need to stop listening to such media outlets that are manipulating us with these kind of dramatic stories.
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:
