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
Should we contact the FAA about a politician promising to waive his arms and fly around the room?
These are politicians making empty promises that are not possible to keep. They are either liars or they are too damn stupid to know how the government works.
Why not call them out for being incompetent instead of promoting it as a serious promise, that also helps gain them more support from their base in the process?
Yes, this is crying wolf. They weren't able to fulfill those promises last time, because they were impossible given the way the US government works, and they won't be able to fulfill those promises next time, because again that's not how the government works.
The more we take this seriously the more we play into their hands and the more we increase their chances of getting elected.
Call them out for lying to their supporters. That's the best way to counter this stuff.
volkris
boosted
@Cătă No problem. Mastodon doesn't know what to do with the title, so it ignores it. I put titles on almost all my posts, Mastodon removes them, and that's it.
@Andii but they aren't bans at all.
To take your analogy, it's not that people are being banned from the bar, but that the bar is choosing not to carry a certain brand of beer.
They're not banning the beer. They're just not supplying it.
And you're right, you can go get that beer in another pub, but that's neither here nor there.
I criticize people engaging in personal mudslinging instead of looking at the actual arguments in rulings, and what do you come back with? Personal mudslinging instead of looking at actual arguments in rullings.
Believe it or not, sometimes politicians make promises that they can't keep, sometimes because they're dishonest and sometimes because they're too damn stupid to know what they're talking about.
Many conservatives fall for this kind of stuff. That doesn't mean we should too.
@GW@newsie.social anybody who thinks this level of persecution of civilians appears to be genocide either doesn't know what genocide is or is being seriously misinformed by sensationalized, or agenda pushing, reporting.
But it goes back to what you said before, where you were equating things that are not the same, occupation versus wiping from the map.
There is plenty to be critical of Israel over, but we can't criticize what they're actually doing if we're too busy attacking strawman and confusing the facts on the ground.
Heck, that tends to actually stand in the way of accountability, distracting from actually countering what they're actually doing.
@squared99@mastodon.coffee Well I don't identify that way so I don't want to speak and put words in other people's mouths.
I'm only saying that people do identify that way.
I personally have a rather negative view of the perspectives of people that identify that way, so that's even more reason that I shouldn't inject my personal feelings into an answer to your question.
@squared99@mastodon.coffee It is, although I also see a lot of video tape and radio interviews of people who identify that way as well.
It's definitely a thing.
I have no idea how many people identify that way, but there's plenty of tape out there to show that a significant portion exists.
@mvario which just brings up the complaint that #mediamatters misled the public with their reporting.
Yeah, it's bad for X, but it's also bad for the general public when such an outlet puts out misleading information for their own benefit.
@squared99@mastodon.coffee Oh I know a bunch of people personally who identify that way.
Yeah there's a lot of people out there who identify as pro-Palestinian.
@whereami so I'm noticing that you are engaging in exactly the thing I was calling out, ignoring users' abilities to shape their experience the way they want.
@squared99@mastodon.coffee sure, that's probably true too, but the reason it's in the headlines is that so many are identifying that way.
@rberger that is literally not what even this article said.
Yes, people take risks and Republicans tend to respect agency and reject authoritarian impositions.
No, allowing people to make those choices does not equate to literally killing Americans.
It's just silly to frame it that way.
Responsibly, we should have these discussions about where to find balance, but this framing does not support that element of good governance.
@Zee@social.coop I think it's noteworthy how all of this discussion avoids mentioning actual competency of the board members.
@squared99@mastodon.coffee I don't think they're the same.
An awful lot of people are out there right now self-identifying as pro-Palestinian as they are protesting.
Oh I see you are doubling down on the ad hominem with a conspiracy theory.
Once again I highlight that you aren't actually engaging with the ONLY thing that matters, the reasoning in the opinion.
Shall we discuss your breakfast preferences and how your choice of waffles versus pancakes has something to do with abortion?
I'm poking fun obviously, but I'm doing it to stress my point: there is a single thing that matters, the reasoning, and you (and so many others) talk about everything, all this drama, all this controversy, a lot of things that are just plain false, everything except the ONE thing that actually matters here.
The reasoning.
Casey already pointed out that the reasoning in Roe v Wade didn't really work. And that was a completely different set of judges. So this focus on personalities just doesn't hold.
Any more than my pancakes can hold the syrup, which is why I'm going with waffles.
@DavidBruchmann and once again I notice that you aren't addressing any actual arguments being made in court rulings.
Uncritical view? I'm criticizing your view!
What you're describing is just not how the US judicial system works.
It's all about reasoning, not about individuals. You keep coming back to individuals, now you're talking about long time judges for some reason, and again that doesn't matter at all.
What matters is the actual reasoning in the opinion, not the identity of the person who put pen to paper to write the opinion.
The US judicial system is not about ad hominem arguments. And you are giving nothing but ad hominem arguments.
@lovelylovely fortunately that's not how the US government works, as it has checks and balances to make sure nobody can do that even if they want to.
Or to put it a different way, yeah people have been crying wolf about that sort of thing for a long time, and this is just more crying wolf.
@DavidBruchmann That's not actually true though.
Yes, it makes for drama and it makes for a sensationalized headlines, but it's not actually factually true.
If I bribe you to do the right thing, it's still the right thing regardless of the bribe.
So we have all of these articles with sensational, often later debunked headlines focusing on personalities but precious little attention being paid to the reasoning itself.
And the reasoning is really all that matters.
So it ends up being ad hominem arguments full of juicy speculation about personal lives that don't actually matter in the least.
The reasoning is what matters.
All the talk of bribes is just basically propaganda.
@DavidBruchmann Well I think that the rule of law is pretty important to society.
As is accurate recitation of the facts as we go about the democratic processes that help us establish that rule of law.
I happen to believe that anarchism is a bad thing that leaves society worse off, so from there I wish to protect the mechanism that establishes rational governance.
So I hope this clarifies things for you. I want to protect against critics who undermine the legal order whether through bad policy or false propaganda. I think it's worth protecting.
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:
