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
I'm referring to whatever conspiracy you want to be promoting today.
I don't figure you're going to be consistent about buying into any particular one.
@Ronial I like how you kept going back to the rich in the comment you made about not being obsessed with the rich.
You do realize that poor people can receive value from something that has absolutely nothing to do with dreaming of being rich, right?
Perhaps you're projecting as your obsession with the rich has you constantly having such dreams, without realizing that the rest of us don't share the obsession.
Some of us are happy in the little creature comforts.
@73ms yes, that's what I said: they don't have a monopoly on the information, as it's public by definition, but they have a monopoly on use of the information.
And that underscores the problem identified above.
@EvilSandmich I'd say mainstream GOP would agree with you that Biden isn't in charge.
Really, I'd say their logic is flawed in a different place: their simultaneous declaring that the law isn't being followed and then the demand for new laws.
But that's what they're working with.
@Ronial again, us poor ones that derive value from whatever war you have in mind would like some consideration, if you can stop obsessing over the rich for a moment.
@Ronial I suspect most people running server farms are already informed enough that I don't need to tell them how the system works.
Bitcoin can run on a RaspberryPi and a solar panel. It doesn't require that much power.
You could set it up today if you wanted to.
It's not an inoffensive logical puzzle. It's just a sensational story being sold despite being factually wrong.
@Free_Press if you check out mainstream GOP discussion, that explanation doesn't really hold water.
For one thing, they already think Biden's lost and cannot be resuscitated, so it doesn't matter if Biden gets a win, regardless of anything Trump would say.
Secondly, they'd count it as a win for themselves and crow about it. Trump would count it as a win in his gobbeldygook.
But mainly, they don't think the Senate legislation goes far enough and they're willing to hold their line thinking it will get them their win.
They're obsessed with border, and that's the reason this legislation is not gaining sufficient Republican support.
@noyes one issue is that I've heard Moderna flat out agreeing with your description, even while third parties, including government officials, engaged in that misrepresentation.
It's a tricky thing to decide how much responsibility Moderna has for others' false advertisement.
So much of the information is public. They don't have a monopoly on that.
They DO have a government enforced monopoly on *use of* that information, and that's what we should be reevaluating, the circumstances in which government should offer to enforce such monopolies.
@AlexanderKingsbury @LisaKalayji@sfba.social
@AlexanderKingsbury I'd clarify one thing in your comment: it's not that they have permission from government to sell you something but that they have the government *blocking others from selling it.*
Their monopoly isn't natural but rather artificial, enforced by threat of enforcement action against anyone else who would enter the market to compete.
Yep, it's cronyism, but when you identify the mechanism it zeros in on the problem and also sounds worse.
@LisaKalayji@sfba.social
@nurglerider nope, but the fact that all the people I know using Bitcoin does mean that non-rich people do use it, so even if you don't care what the rich people think, maybe you'd care that we little people derive value from it.
If you don't care what rich people think, why are you so obsessed with them instead of considering the little guy?
@Ronial Bitcoin doesn't rely on polluting the world, though.
Yes, there have been many sensational stories describing it that way, but they're based on misunderstandings (or misrepresentations) of how Bitcoin works.
That narrative is false.
@quatrezoneilles if you check the Senate records you'd see that the Senate failed to approve many nominees that Trump sent over.
Those stories were always just sensationalism.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/2020/Final_2020.pdf
@mk firstly, he failed to live up to his promise to end your vast conspiracy when he was in power.
Secondly, after that broken promise he made rude comments that gave the conspiracy extra fodder to work with. All his mean tweets. They confirmed the story being told by the conspiracy.
Thirdly, his losing efforts to challenge election proceedings in courts earned him no benefit but did play into the conspiracy's hands, giving them even more to say, "Look, we're right!"
I could go on and on, but the guy basically supported the conspiracy.
Wait, maybe Trump didn't actually do wrong, and his appearance as being such a loser and failure was actually an act because HE'S PART OF THE CONSPIRACY!
Woah.
@edvin scientifically (which is what I'm talking about) I wouldn't say any claim should be taken as any sort of hypothesis merely because we've come so far.
No, this is exactly the sort of thing I'm emphasizing here. That strikes me as unhealthy pseudoscience.
Scientifically I want to see a theory before a hypothesis that might test the theory. I would only credit something as the null hypothesis in the context of a specifically stated theory.
Rhetorically or politically, fine, call it whatever you'd like, but I'd be clear that it's not scientific.
The line "my non-scientific null hypothesis" doesn't carry quite the same authority, but that's exactly my point, if we're clear about what is and isn't scientific then we stop people from claiming scientific authority for pseudoscience.
@mattmcirvin
@CStamp yep, I agree, but the problem is that the way the system is set up, it's mainly up to the people we elect to Congress, and we keep reelecting the same jerks.
WE need to stop reelecting them. That's where the accountability starts. But we let congresspeople escape accountability for authorizing these programs, and we re-elect them, so
::shrug::
Yes, we should hold them accountable. But we don't.
We get the government we vote for.
@HistoPol I really think Fediverse presents huge technical and managerial challenges to the centralized systems, and it takes time to sort all of it out, to sort out if it's even possible to integrate.
Technically, ActivityPub is not a lightweight protocol. It takes a lot of resources to manage all the streams going left and right without the computational efficiency of just operating in-house.
Managerially, I don't think any centralized service has really figured out how to integrate the Wild West into the more controlled environment their users expect, not even getting into moderation issues.
I think they're moving slowly because there are real challenges and problems that have to be solved, and it takes time to solve them.
@Free_Press block a border deal? No, that's not how the US system works.
It's up to the proposers of a deal to gain support, not for our representatives to deny it.
If the proposal isn't compelling to the ones we elect, that doesn't mean they blocked it, it means the proposal didn't measure up.
@lauren well, it's more that even the threat of a short sentence does tend to disrupt one's lifestyle.
Even if the sentence is dropped on appeal for a shoddy legal case, the guy will have already faced enormous costs even though he was on the right side of the law.
Such is this current divisive environment.
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:
