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
@Dogzilla so that is what I thought you were saying, you are advocating for shutting down the democratic institution for the sake of not having Jordan as speaker.
You are saying to forget democracy because you're afraid of who might get elected by the democratic process.
And yes, not only do they have that mechanism but we see in the voting rolls that they used it, but that's a different issue, that's a matter of procedure separate from your advocacy of anti-democratic action for the sake of blocking this politician you don't like.
@KatieLoves2Read a person can simultaneously speak out against what Russia is doing to Ukraine while also saying that the US shouldn't be throwing cash into ineffective programs to counter them.
This article seems to miss that.
@Dogzilla when you say by any means necessary, I assume you are including keeping the democratic institution shut down.
If that's not what you mean, I apologize.
@SteveThompson I think she's merely pointing out the fact that an independent Supreme Court is fundamental to the constitutional separation of powers.
They hold themselves, emphasizing that nobody else has authority to interfere with the Supreme Court beyond the impeachment option.
@CuriousMagpie@mastodon.social I think this is one of those stories where they oversimplify a complicated situation by blaming it all on a single individual.
In reality, this is about the strategizing and self interests of hundreds of representatives, with diverse ideas about what should happen, regardless of what Jim Jordan thinks.
He didn't break the system. We all elected reps who had (ahem) questionable ideas about what to do with the system.
@tc_morekindness but what exactly did they do wrong in the process?
You can't simply say that the districting is bad because it didn't favor the right team.
What specific errors did they make?
Maybe not as aggressively as many think, as there was so much misreporting on the event.
The SCOTUS said that AL was required to engage in racial gerrymandering that it hadn't used in its districting.
Later, it declined to say more when asked for clarification.
@maxkennerly you say that like it would be a good thing for society to be unable to advance past Apollo-era methods and technologies.
No, humanity has made advancements over the past half century, and we're much better off for it.
So #SpaceX is calling for more resources to go toward the regulators who legally protect things like the environment, and if you believe those protections to be a worthy cause then this means the company is on your side.
Yes, it's in their interests, but it means your interests align with the big company.
It's a take yes for an answer sort of situation.
That's not how regulatory interactions like this work, though.
The regulator goes through legal processes that don't really care who Musk is.
It does us no good for folks to try to make this into a sensationalized melodrama instead of looking at the actual actions of the agencies legally bound to follow their procedures.
@Dogzilla the disagreement I have is that whether Jordan is an existential threat to democracy or not, you're talking about actually undermining democracy to oppose him, and I wouldn't make that trade.
It's avoiding the possibility of harm by guaranteeing the harm, burning the village to save it.
Democratic processes might select Jordan. So you're bringing up the subversion of democracy because Jordan MIGHT subvert democracy, and I'd rather leave open the possibility that he might not.
(And that's all assuming the Democrats maintain their strategy that puts this all on the table in the first place)
@Dogzilla my point is not that Jordan is in any way a good person.
It's that you are promoting division, for better or worse, by saying Democrats need to oppose him, whatever it takes.
You might even conclude that the division is better than having Jordan as Speaker. That's fair! But recognize that you're promoting division because you believe it to be better than the alternative.
Personally, I think it's a bad idea to keep our democratic institution shut down like this, but if you believe the alternative is worse, again, that's fair.
@MaRY1Fem this sort of narrative misses that it's not up to Jordan, not up to the candidate, but up to the general membership of the House.
It's a narrative that oversimplifies the situation.
All of the hundreds of members of the House can vote for whomever they want, regardless of what the people they vote for might think of it. Candidates don't have to register, and it's not really up to them whether they get votes or not.
We don't need to talk about an offramp for Jordan. We need to talk about an offramp for the entire membership of the House, to get them off of this stalemate.
Yes, that's a more complicated discussion, but it's the reality.
@danwentzel sure, so long as you also don't forget 208 Democrats who were willing to vote with Republican extremists to shut down Congress.
And then continue to vote alongside them to make it so that no moderate Republican could win the speakership.
Well, just remember that the inefficiencies and high resource consumption of the Fediverse protocol has been a source of criticism ever since it exploded onto the scene.
You say keeping it simple and adapted to low resources, but as it stands it's already not doing that.
@gerrymcgovern
@gerrymcgovern it's a false comparison, though.
Since satellite internet operates in places where there IS no land-based alternative, there is no land-based alternative to compare it with.
It's a comparison against an imaginary hypothetical.
@manton it's not that they agree to tell the truth.
It's that they agree to tell prosecutors what they want to hear.
Such exercises of power and plea bargaining have always been corrupting.
Just recognize: you're beginning the question when you say they tell the truth. If we knew already that what they're saying was the truth then it wouldn't matter if they said it or not.
What they're really getting here are confederates operating under threat of harsh punishment of the state.
@jackiegardina I'd say those who think government authorities allow too much speech really highlight exactly why we have freedoms of speech and press enshrined as constitutional rights.
Yes, authoritarians are always going to want to control what we say, even with the best of intentions.
That's why we push back on them and refuse to allow them that power.
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:
