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
@tristansnell never forget the option that whatever Trump is doing or saying, he's doing it purely because he feeds off of attention and he believes doing or saying the thing will get him attention.
As this has.
I honestly don't think he is sufficiently in touch with reality to freak out. I think he wants to stay in headlines and keep getting mentioned on social media, and here we are.
It plays into his game to post about him.
@MattFerrel Yeah, I agree that is most likely, but it's a chaotic system so it's hard to predict with certainty at this point.
Small changes may have big impacts.
@pbump The real test will come with the first primaries.
Given the structure of the US election system, everything changes once the field is narrowed down.
So we'll see what happens. Trump is extremely vulnerable, but it's hard to predict how that vulnerability will play out once there's someone in a position to really take advantage of it.
@squig@mastodon-uk.net goes to show the danger of ignoring populations who might be susceptible to such an offer.
Remember, these people are symptoms of underlying causes.
@CarolineMalaCorbin It seems like the ruling might be overstating the breadth of religious exemption requirements.
We'll see if it holds.
@squig@mastodon-uk.net Well I think it's mainly that Trump's whole deal is getting attention and getting mentioned, and hey you're mentioning him, so it looks like his strategy is working.
@NanoBookReview I'm definitely against those laws, but let's not devalue Jim Crow by equating it to repercussions for behaviors like these.
Jim Crow laws attacked people for what they were. These laws, stupid as they may be, respond to choices people make.
@alexf24 I mean this is exactly the sort of attention that the guy feeds off of.
@jackiegardina people who think they have the gotcha when Trump makes statements like this underestimate just how mealy mouthed the guy is.
He'll just say the opposite as it suits him, or he'll say whatever garbage manages to flow out of his brain at any particular point, that is barely coherent English.
It's like Calvinball. You can't expect him to abide by any particular standards outside of the ones a system will impose on him.
@ssnewbery If Joe Biden is running on democracy, he sure has a funny way of doing it, what with his thumbing, his nose at the elected congress and the laws passed through our democratic processes.
But that's not the metric that a court should be judged by.
The court is emphatically not a democratic institution and is in fact set up to be a check on the power of public consensus.
That the court doesn't match public consensus is the entire point.
@seachanger who's waving off these examples as irrelevant?
Not me.
Fact I would hold them up as examples where the people involved really need to consider whether their actions are harming their own causes.
I think they might be relevant for the wrong reasons.
But sure, mute away. That's how social media works.
@lazyb0y but it's not though.
Once you bend over your money to someone else, it's not your money anymore, it's theirs.
That's the whole point.
Anyway, whatever, my point still stands: If you are overpaying CEOs you should stop. That's really up to you.
I would say that you are probably not paying CEOs at all, but again, if you are paying CEOs too much money, stop it.
@lazyb0y unless you're buying CEOs... you're not.
These companies are the ones buying CEOs. You're just buying their products when they make things you judge to be worth buying.
@trevorflowers @grumble209
@jumbanho right, I said RCTs are indirect, and you disagreed while describing how indirect they are :)
Yes, you laid out nicely that RCTs are indirect. If you're continuing to disagree, I don't know why.
At this point I guess you just don't realize that the study did what you were asking for, and I don't know whether that's because you don't understand the study or you don't know what you're asking for.
I'm not sure where your disconnect is there.
@chrisgeidner I really don't think "government can't push private groups to silence speech instead of doing it itself" is as fringe an argument as you believe
@seachanger I think many overestimate the role of public demonstrations in getting out the viewpoints of the demonstraters.
Heck, often enough the demonstrations are used by opponents to push back against their causes. They're often counterproductive.
So since I don't think demonstrations do much good in amplifying voices in the first place, I don't think these examples really represent powers silencing voices. They're mainly responding to actions, separate from voices, in ways that are often viewpoint agnostic.
If anything, the real acts of silencing seem to be pushing back against false propaganda, which isn't the most unreasonable thing depending on the nature of the particular case.
More about accountability than punishment, as they say.
@seachanger well, what specific examples would you cite?
@ColinOatley AFAIK that's not misleading; it's what the study flat out found.
The inclusion of those observations did nothing to change the conclusion of the study, making no difference.
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:
