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, the logic is based on looking at what's already happened, looking at the way people have already voted.
200 Democrats voted to set the stage for a maga wingnut as Speaker with such intention that they were willing to shut down the entire legislative process to do it.
That doesn't sound like a group ready to negotiate to me.
It also sounds like you're buying into some false information about how the spinning levels are set in Congress. I've seen that going around too, and it's just not how Congress works.
@grumble209 and I would also reject that it's the government's problem to supply trained labor to anybody.
But I can simultaneously say it's not government's problem to supply trained labor and also government is failing in the jobs that it does take on, the programs that it sets up and then charges the population taxes to fund.
In fact, to some extent the two ideas are linked as maybe government is failing at the things it should do because it is distracted trying to do exactly this thing that it shouldn't.
Such a statement is like talking about cancer treatment, but extended to people without cancer: it's no minor thing to extend the concept from the one situation to the other.
@putnamca so I noticed that you are still not citing a specific law or regulation
And I mean that my trying to meet you more than halfway, allowing regulations over and above the USC to prove your claim.
So I guess come back when you have a law to cite.
I would be very interested in knowing what laws machine shops across the country are violating on a daily basis.
I don't know if I've asked two or three times, but either way, that you haven't cited a law really just makes me think that maybe there is none, and we are all in the clear.
Please cite the law that we are breaking by using the aluminum that comes from the guy down the street.
@putnamca I hate to tell you, but we don't actually consult Congress over the minimum standards for aluminum.
That's just not how our supply chain works.
We can use aluminum from the guy down the street smelting it from Coke cans in his backyard or even right out of ore if we want. The regulations don't really impact at that level.
Not to mention, I think most standards come from executive branch regulatory action, not Congress itself.
It sounds like you're trying really hard to fit reality into some model you have in mind, but it just doesn't really work that way.
And if we don't want that to be the case, we can change it.
There is some social benefit to investing in companies, but if we don't think that benefit is worthy of the tax policy, okay, we can stop allowing people to deduct investment activities from their income.
@putnamca but what you're saying is just not factually correct.
If I go into the shop tomorrow and I'm facing the decision of using a hunk of steel versus a hunk of aluminum to make a part I'm not going to consult Congress to decide which is more efficient.
I should probably consider the efficiency of the two different options, the relative costs of the two materials, the difficulty of machining the two, all of those factors that go into efficiency.
Congress didn't invent that kind of difference. Congress doesn't control it.
And the inefficiency isn't locked in as the costs of the two different materials very from week to week.
But, if my workplace would like to have a profit, they'll probably want me to go ahead and use the less costly option. Because inefficiency eats away at profit.
So I think you're really focusing on this top down view of the world that isn't very realistic on a day-to-day basis.
@HappyHeathen@kolektiva.social *shrug* every problematic politician has been voted into office.
Really if anything I'm not saying voting is the solution, rather that it is the problem.
We actively go out and vote awful people into office, and we should probably stop doing that.
@putnamca you are right on both counts
I'm doing voice dictation at the moment and the AI chose the wrong spelling.
And yes, absolutely, what I can or can't believe isn't really the issue, but if you would like to convince someone like me, this is the barrier you have to overcome. And if you don't, that's all right too.
Rich people turning their backs on money? That seems like a stretch. So how do you make your position make sense given that, assuming you care to?
@putnamca and now I have no idea how you brought conservatism into this 🙂
If anything I would go the other way with that.
The profit motive is anti-conservative, so are these people greedy or not? Did they care about efficiency or conservatism? Did they want more money?
I think you're all over the place at this point.
@putnamca I just don't believe that fear overcomes the prophet motive like that on the whole.
@LeftistLawyer I really don't think many people really learn or grow on social media platforms, and in my experience it seems like this platform is particularly uninterested in such growth.
It's just a bunch of people confirming their biases.
@dshafik IMO, which I absolutely admit is not fully informed, it seems like the way to handle, understanding and thinking about the whole situation is mainly through the lens of tragically huge political functions.
For generations political figures have followed personal self-interests to set up and promote dangerous political situations from which all of this bloodshed has arisen over all of these years.
Unfortunately, the interests of the international community have helped promote those interests of the politicians directly involved.
IMO this is all about ongoing political failure, and sadly there is no resolution in sight.
My point is that if I understand your post correctly, it's looking for a way to view all of this, and this is my way to view it all.
@LeftistLawyer it's not though
@TheOldGuy wow, this article is really trying to stoke some drama.
But in reality maybe people just turned away from the speech because it honestly wasn't very good.
That's the simpler explanation, the one that matches what I've seen anyway.
@the_Effekt this kind of conspiracy theory story just never really makes any sense.
If efficient options were out there, then the big evil corporations could make more profit by engaging the more efficient options.
Why would they give up earnings?
No, Occam's razor tells us that it's not really what's happening, the efficiencies are overstated or non-existent.
And a whole bunch of people are writing stories to get clicks because they get money from misleading the public about this sort of thing.
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:
