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
The problem with that line of argument is that it tries to counter one false or misleading stance with just a different false or misleading stance, which leaves the response vulnerable to debunking.
YES e2ee absolutely lets people doing bad things hide in the dark, and there's no sense denying that. Those technologies protect the privacy and hide communication of all without regard to their guilt. Any denial of that will come across as obviously wrong.
Instead the argument should be that protections of privacy for all, for YOU, are worth supporting as we find the balance between personal rights and law enforcement priorities.
Yes, if we had a camera in every bedroom we'd catch more people doing bad things, and not mandating such cameras does hamper law enforcement, but we're willing to accept that trade off. We don't deny that police cameras in bedrooms would catch more; we point out that we're willing to make that trade.
Same here.
@freemo it's one of those cases where people are reading way too much into a statement #Musk makes on the fly.
The statement I've seen quoted was his merely musing about ways to combat bots. And then the world blew up interpreting that as his saying they would definitely be charging everyone for #Twitter access.
We've been around this cycle so many times, but people never learn.
It's like the opposite of the boy who cried wolf: the boy didn't cry it and the villagers didn't stop responding.
Here's a link to the Senate talking about going through the appropriations process, and they're talking about it even as the House hasn't passed any bills.
Whoever told you that appropriations are initiated in the House told you wrong.
Maybe you're confusing it with the requirement that bills for raising revenue must begin in the House, though even that is basically nullified these days through the amendment loophole in the Senate.
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/majority/murray-and-collins-kick-off-consideration-of-first-appropriations-bills-on-the-senate-floor
@MaryAustinBooks
@watson@freeatlantis.com
Sure, break the fever, though that may involve killing the patient in the process.
The thing is, no matter if this is right or not, if most of the people we elect to Congress don't agree then it won't work.
If we elected people who want to continue the fever--or however you want to phrase the status quo--then that's what we voted for.
The diehards opposing that are risking a much better outcome whether they're philosophically in the right or not.
And again, based on the representatives we've elected. It may be our choice to continue the fever. From what I've heard from them, the diehards don't seem to recognize that.
I suspect CNN runs the program because people are interested, "should" or not, so really the question is better answered to those people who are interested.
Yeah, Trump says a lot of things. And barfs out other things that people interpret as him saying things.
It's all pretty pointless to take seriously, which is a problem.
Can't hold the guy accountable for breaking a promise that you can't actually tell he made, after all.
It's a nice conspiracy theory, but have you considered that maybe, just maybe. Chevron should be overruled not because of any back room dealing but because there's been a mountain of evidence that it was a mistake in the first place failing on its own right?
All of this side drama is kind of pointless when we can see the arguments for and against here in public and judge them ourselves.
The drama is distraction from the reasonable arguments that really matter in Court decisions.
House members have no authority or ability to shut government down.
They/re not paid to or not to shut government down any more than I pay Netflix to do the same thing.
It just goes against basic civics, fundamental elements of how the US government functions, how Congress functions in the system of separate but equal branches.
The problem is, I think you got so caught up in telling a compelling and dramatic story of personalities that you lost sight of what the ruling *actually said.*
Yes, you may have written that, but when talking about what the Court said, it would be much better to have actually quoted from the Court, not this dramatization of your own composition that seems so far from the work of the court itself.
Self-citation isn't exactly bringing in an ally, after all :)
There has been so much misreporting about these cases, but if you read the SCOTUS ruling and what AL did, they complied with the ruling.
Perhaps SCOTUS will clarify and say that AL effectively exploited a loophole, or maybe they're say AL got it right.
But there's been a lot of misreporting about what the ruling actually said, allowing for these narratives that AL defied a ruling when really they complied with the letter of the law, so to speak.
If you watch the raw video of the hearing you'll see that the CNN reporting was pretty misleading.
It's just how journalism is these days.
The thing is, that's not how the US government works.
This quote gets it completely backwards.
It's not that the House shuts government down, but rather the government shuts down if it doesn't have authority to operate through the democratic process.
If jagoffs like #Fetterman honestly don't know matters of basic civics then they probably shouldn't be members of Congress, especially particularly powerful members of Congress like senators.
But we should at least make fun of them even if their constituents don't care to hold them accountable.
I love how you jumped right into the conspiracy theory without bothering to wait for the go-ahead.
The best part about zany conspiracy theories is that you can pull the trigger on them at any point and they are equally respectable and reasonable.
I think it's funny that you are posting the statement that culture is naturally evolve to become centralized on a platform that is a culture that evolved to become decentralized.
@strong_sue Exactly! Thank you!
@lauren you see?
Republicans are not a monolithic bloc. Different Republicans have huge different disagreements with other Republicans, as we see playing out very clearly on the national stage today.
With that in mind, maybe it is the explanation that you heard, but it's not the explanation that I heard from Republicans back in the day.
Maybe we were listening to different groups of Republicans though.
I just hope you were actually listening to Republicans and not listening to opponents of Republicans stereotyping their opponents.
I'm legitimately wondering, there's the text of the statute as far as I can tell, how does it apply to a Western Union employee?
Did I pull up the wrong statute? Which one are you referring to, and how does it apply?
Oh I see.
I mean the fact that those civil servants operate within the Biden administration means that technically Biden himself has vetted them for us.
But never mind that, we have an even better source as Biden himself has described his own role in leveraging federal funds to push foreign governments to act in ways that at least implicate conflicts of interest with his own family.
Again, I'm not saying these are smoking guns, and their might even be explanations to justify the evidence, but we have to admit that there is evidence if we are going to address it in the first place.
Also, yes, there were many plans to replace Obamacare. Plan after plan was posted to websites, discussed in conferences, and presented in media tours.
It's always baffling this line that there was no replacement plan that somehow got attention, reported on even as I was in the process of reading through replacement plans that I'm being told don't exist.
The state of journalism these days...
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:
