volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@hagen but that's factually incorrect.

The Nazi party was a specific organization with membership. People who weren't members weren't Nazis, Even if they were very tolerant people.

@NeoNacho

@hagen there's a famous example of a logical fallacy that murderers drink milk therefore people who drink milk are murderers.

Reasoning like that comes awfully close to such a fallacy.

It's not persuasive, it just sounds naive.

@NeoNacho

@PerryM to be clear, Trump is such a dishonest person that just because he may be riiling up his supporters by saying something on some cable news station, it doesn't mean he's actually upset about it.

It's his schtick. That's how trolls work.

The comparison has given conservatives plenty of red meat to grouse about.

@BoredStupid

> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

@NeoNacho That's like saying humanity is a Nazi species.

No, just because there may be Nazis on the site doesn't mean it is a Nazi site.

That kind of framing really misleads.

@etiennew Yeah it's kind of a compromise, and in a way it doesn't even matter exactly where the compromise number was set.

It's not like the Fed has a knob that they can use to actually set the inflation rate.

So it's a ballpark guideline, it didn't need to be precise, it just had to be reasonable, so they chose 2%.

@BoredStupid
> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

@PerryM he doesn't seem upset about it. He uses it in his rhetoric.

Really it's playing into his hands.

@FerdiZ The problem is, if the people want war and you replace the governments with people who don't, you end up with a representative body that doesn't have much ability to actually implement that policy.

The people will keep on warring, just with a heightened state of anarchy, which could make things even worse.

@runsm0oth but like I said, this has big implications for the broader world, as goals that involve unsolvable problems weaken the public support for goals involving problems that are actually solvable.

They aren't independent.

And that's not even getting into other issues of society wasting resources on goals that are unachievable when those resources could be better spent on the ones that can be achieved.

So this is a major issue!

We really need to have as much or more focus on solutions then on goals.

Society is harmed every day by processes that don't keep that in mind.

@gcblasing@mstdn.social I'm still wondering what you're on about.

What specifically are you referring to?

@gcblasing@mstdn.social what in the world? Conservatives are pretty good cheerleaders for cops.

@runsm0oth You're misunderstanding my point, though, actually getting it exactly backwards.

To put it a different way, you keep talking about objectives when my entire point is that the focus on objectives should not distract us from the reality on the ground that regardless of objective there are often cases where there is no solution.

The identification of specific solution, or lack thereof! is critical since the objective is purely academic without a solution to get us to the objective.

Maybe I can put it yet another way by saying that I can have the objective of providing clean, unlimited power to every city and town through hooking up perpetual motion machines to generators. And I can talk about that objective all day long, I can celebrate it, and we can all stand together and cheer about how positive that objective is.

The problem is, there is no perpetual motion machine. There is no solution that actually gets to that objective.

We can't let focus on high profile objectives eclipse the need for real, practical solutions to achieve them.

Without solutions we are better off not even having those objectives in the first place.

@peteorrall they were quoted as objecting to censorship, not favoring payment from disfavored groups.

It's a completely different argument.

@Lazarou

@runsm0oth but again, some problems don't have solutions no matter how much we want them to.

It's one thing to assert that humans deserve those things. Yes! Sounds great! However no assertion can turn and unsolvable problem into a solvable one.

So where do we go after we declare that somebody deserves something that reality simply doesn't allow for? What good is the declaration? And in fact, it might end up even undermining such declarations as people get frustrated in seeing grand proposals not really working out.

I think we are saying that pretty clearly over the last decade with climate change declarations, just to put one finger on it.

It kind of delegitimizes the entire international order when people see impossible objectives and unrealistic promises not being achieved.

@RichPuchalsky Don't discount the possibility that other people don't have the same values that you do and they aren't subscribed to your crusade.

It may well be that other people aren't paid to stay on substack. It's just that they don't care about the things you care about, so they don't care about this.

I wouldn't.

@runsm0oth The problem is, there might not actually be a way out.

A whole lot of people seem to be assuming a solution that might not actually exist.

Sometimes a problem doesn't actually have a solution.

@kentborg different chains of lights might be wired differently, but yep! I had the same annoyance with chains of lights so I fed them DC and just accepted every other bulb not being lit.

In fact as the LEDs wore out over time I would switch the polarity of the DC to light up the other half and renew the chain.

@Bongolian "in US public schools" is a really key sentence in this report since it really debunks the framing that these politicians are trying to promote.

No, books aren't really being banned here. Rather public institutions are deciding the public policy outlines around which the public schools are to operate.

That's just government governing itself.

People are free to have whatever books they want. Their civil liberties are unaffected.

It's just that public schools are operated by the public under the terms that the public wants them to operate.

If anything this is a good reason to talk about not relying on the very institutions that are being criticized here.