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
This take gets the story a bit wrong.
It's not that the legislature had gerrymandered black voters out of a fair map but the opposite: the Court ruled AL *must* gerrymander a map that takes race into account.
And now it's not that the Supreme Court quickly batted down the challenge but that it simply said it wasn't going to get involved.
@argv_minus_one@mstdn.party
Oh, an awful lot of conservatives do think Trump has/had honorable intentions.
Studies of the electorate showed otherwise: Trump managed to bring together a coalition of different groups--many who had huge disagreements with others--in a way that no other candidate could.
It wasn't a case of splitting of the vote. It was more that Trump managed to make himself into a Rorschach exam onto which those different groups could project their own notions of what they wanted.
Republicans voted FOR Trump. They didn't vote against other candidates in this case.
Really?
It seems like the opposition split would have just split the remaining 56% and not impacted the 43.9%.
If anything the fighting might have taken even more votes away as people tried to bolster their favorites.
I mean, RFKJ has made opposition to modern authoritarianism central to his political posture for the past few years.
I think you have that backwards.
That's not what Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27#xiv3
This concept that a vote for anyone else is a vote for Trump is clearly silly at best and undemocratic at worse.
No, a voter is entirely within their power to refuse to support #Biden without supporting #Trump either. To say otherwise is to disenfranchise the voter.
#Takei has never been a deep thinker, but we need to call out stuff like this in particular because of how undemocratic it is.
Folks should vote for the candidate they think best, all things considered, without having words put in their mouths like this.
What?
You say that Trump will face justice regardless of political advantage which seems to show that a civil union based on respect and the rule of law is indeed possible.
I think the key is right there at the end: "costing"
#ActivityPub is not a lightweight protocol or system. We've seen plenty of instance operators voicing concerns and surprise about how resource intensive it is at scale, how much it costs to operate as usage increases.
I wouldn't be surprised if Tumblr (and many other sites) looked into the costs of running giant instances and recoiled at the investment it would require to make it a reality.
And this is something we need to call out the platform over. We should vocally criticize the platform for making design choices that are so unscalable.
I always love those acknowledging the democratic process while saying the problem is that people don't vote the way they're supposed to.
No, the problem isn't that people voted one way or the other. The problem is that we have an environment where people can't get on the same page to discuss the way of the world and make informed votes.
It's not a problem that people voted for MAGA folks. The MAGA folks exist in the first place because of the deeper problem.
Well, the issue is that the enforcement mechanism has been ruled unconstitutional already, so they're asking the Supreme Court to settle on whether it should be an exception to the normal legal processes in US courts.
@watson@freeatlantis.com
I mean, the defense contractors only do what the people we elect tell them to do.
We keep electing officials that write checks to defense contractors. That's on us.
Not really.
The changes to Chrome's privacy programming was announced long ago and has been in the works forever, and as I recall was more of a response to EU regulations than anything else.
@lauren
That's not what's happening here.
Partnering with a public social media platform to show ads is not directly participating directly in disseminating hate speech.
Here's the docket for anyone interested.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-117.html
I mean, it's unflinching but also unrealistic, full of misrepresentations of what rulings said that just don't match what we can read with our own eyes in the opinions that were handed down.
This article is a work of historical fiction, but it gets clicks, so *shrug* right?
It still needs to be called out for being so misinformative, though, even if Slate profits off of selling the story.
What's the basis of the criminal organization comparison?
It sounds more than a bit hyperbolic.
@watson@freeatlantis.com
There are legit reasons and strategies that would lead lawyers to do this, though.
For example, wanting to get the trial over with more quickly so that it can be appealed more quickly.
You don't have to jump to the conspiracy theories here.
Yeah, let's not involve objectivity or factual accuracy in this *eyeroll*
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:
