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
@Mary625@mstdn.social it's coming straight from the UN.
@tadbithuman Yeah the UN sometimes takes a little while to update their public information, but we at least have their immediate press summary of the positions.
https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15519.doc.htm
@Mary625@mstdn.social
@msquebanh@mstdn.ca according to the UN, the US says that they DID propose amendments, but they were ignored by the other countries.
@Mary625@mstdn.social
@tadbithuman The US said that its suggestions for the resolution were ignored.
So the other countries at the table stopped them.
@Mary625@mstdn.social
@Mary625@mstdn.social That's still backwards.
The US said this resolution was not going to work, so it is BECAUSE they wanted to save more people that they said the resolution needs to be more serious.
The US said that the international community needs serious responses, not rushed or symbolic responses, and called on the UN to propose something that would actually save lives.
Basically the US didn't think the resolution was strong enough against anybody engaging in the bloodshed, saying that under this resolution the bloodshed would have continued, so the UN needs to get serious.
@Mary625@mstdn.social there's so much misinformation out there though.
For example, the US voted against the ceasefire resolution at the UN because it didn't go far enough, and wouldn't have been strong enough to really promote peace on the ground.
You can see that in the official UN releases, but so much anger on social media gets that story backwards.
@gcblasing@mstdn.social The US expressed concern that the resolution didn't go far enough and wouldn't result in actual piece.
@tsyum think of it as if every post, comment, reply, etc, are all top level posts, just some of them include extra information indicating that in addition to being a post it's referencing what it is in reply to.
So even if you block somebody they can still reply to your post because really they are just making another post, just one with a indicator pointing back to yours.
I hope that makes sense and isn't actually just more confusing :-)
The underlying system doesn't really distinguish between posts and replies. The user interface can present it with replies attached to what they reply to, but that's really about how it displays to the user.
@StarkRG it's more that what you claim happened isn't in the UN report.
You can go through the entire document and you won't find the US saying that those deaths are acceptable. In fact the US says the opposite, but the key is that what you said happened is nowhere in the UN official reports.
Sure thing. We can go right to the UN's own description of the day's events to see that it wasn't as you described.
Here's their press release.
@StarkRG That's a gross misrepresentation of what happened in this political process, and it's really not helpful, since anybody familiar with the resolution actually on the table isn't going to be swayed by that sort of allegation.
No, the US didn't say that.
If we actually want to push for solutions to real international problems, it's not helpful to be so unrealistic about what's actually happening in the world.
@tvrecapsreviews The article makes it sound like they complied with the court order.
@tadbithuman okay, only other hand sometimes rejecting symbolism actually promotes substantial change by not letting people get sidetracked in symbols.
But none of that means this was anything other than an empty gesture.
Sounds like maybe we can at least agree that this was symbolic and not an actual referendum on actual peace.
You sound optimistic that the symbol would have turned into something real. I am certain it would not have. But at the least, it was just a symbolic gesture the politicians were posturing around, regardless of which of us was correct.
@tadbithuman ... they do which is why we need to call it out when it happens, like in this present case.
@Sobieck If you listen to mainstream Republicans they often take the opposite stance, saying that this administration has squandered the chance to help Ukrainians win, with Republicans bashing the administration for slow walking really vital armaments.
Many mainstream Republicans are demanding that the administration lay out its plan for changing how it has been engaging with Ukraine, to actually give Ukraine more support than the lackluster support it has been offering so far.
@tadbithuman it's not American opposition to ceasefire
It's the American government putting up symbolic opposition to a symbolic resolution that would have had no practical effect anyway.
We should not take that political posturing too seriously. It just encourages them to do more of it.
@StarkRG the UN resolution was only symbolic, though. It carried no real weight.
So this was a symbolic veto of a symbolic resolution, just a game.
There was and is no real ceasefire bid on the table, and we shouldn't buy into the posturing of these politicians.
@GuyDudeman annoyingly, so far the strategy has just made it more likely that Trump would be rotting in the Oval Office, laughing all the way back into power.
@starsider Well right, that's what I'm saying.
Trump doesn't really think anything in particular. He just mimics the audience back at them.
That's why it's much more important to focus on the audience than on Trump, because he's just an empty suit that the audience is projecting onto.
So many people really miss that, trying to engage as if Trump is the root cause, but he's not. It's the audience that needs to be engaged with.
@jupiter_rowland Right, so we should encourage the Mastodon developers to focus on empowering users to make that kind of decision.
Mastodon should do better.
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:
