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
@karlauerbach sounds like a good time to bring up #IPFS where content is located by its hash rather than some location or DNS record.
Really, it sounds like you're trying to use DNS for something it was never intended for, and complaining that it doesn't do well something that it was never supposed to do in the first place.
DNS was not supposed to be about permanence.
@freemo you talk about governments passing laws, and that's exactly it: governments are extremely limited in what they can do in reality. Yeah they can pass laws all day long, and they can devote more and more resources into trying to execute those laws, and yet governments cannot in reality perfectly implement law.
A government can outlaw anything, but that doesn't mean it's going to stop.
How's that war on drugs going?
And so capitalism will remain no matter what government thinks of it, just like drug use.
Government can try to suppress it if it wants, but capitalism is so natural, so tied into the human experience, it will exist regardless of what a government official signs into law.
And really that emphasizes my point. That a government might choose to oppose and crack down on capitalism just highlights that capitalism exists outside of government. For government to have to oppose it means that it must exist without government in the first place, separate from government.
Just like drug use 🙂
@dashrandom but that's simply not true
Capitalism will exist regardless of government. Government has no say over whether capitalism exists.
Capitalism is such a natural human institution that it has the same status as, say, language.
People will talk to each other regardless of what government thinks about it. Capitalism is such a fundamental element of life that we neither need government permission nor care what government thinks about it.
Humans do capitalism because capitalism is in our incentives. We don't ask permission from government to do capitalism.
@WarnerCrocker Oh, I think recent events show very clearly that a lot of people who have been running and even getting elected have absolutely no idea how to work the system.
We are electing morons. We are actively going to the polls and actively casting votes for morons.
We are actually electing people who don't know how to work the system, and that's actually a problem!
We should stop. We should stop getting in our cars or on the public transport or whatever, stop taking time out of our day, stop showing our voter registration cards and going through all the extra effort it takes to vote for idiots.
We are doing that. We should stop doing that.
@WarnerCrocker stop reelecting politicians who have failed us.
The thing is, it's not that we roll the dice and take a chance on a politician. It's that so often we elect a politician, see that they screw up, and then we affirmatively reelect them to continue screwing up.
We should stop.
@x_minus_t@mstdn.social I mean, Democrats were the ones relying on student debt to fund democratic programs.
It's a distraction to talk about Republicans when this was a Democratic plan that is now being attacked by Democrats.
@WarnerCrocker It's up to all of us.
If we decide differently, things will be different.
We should not accept disempowerment.
@dalfen there is absolutely no chance that MTG would become speaker.
She doesn't have support from either Democrats or Republicans to make that happen.
@WarnerCrocker Well like so many topics it comes from all of us, we need more education in the general population so that we can stop reelecting the same officials who keep failing us and demand better.
I suggest we educate all of us better.
So, you know, no, there's no optimism that things are going to get better any time soon 🙂
@micchiato@mastodon.social a legacy of respecting our ability to own things without the president being able to come in and just take them?
Workers being able to own things?
Heaven forbid!
Yes, that is a legacy worth upholding.
@SallyStrange Nice conspiracy theory you have there.
@mrcopilot Well it's more of an executive branch issue than judicial branch at this point.
@WarnerCrocker It's the difference between could versus will.
Yes, that political option is on the table. No, there's no realistic chance that the politicians that we have elected will take that option.
@newsopinionsandviews this is the kind of reporting that makes people lose faith in institutions like CNN.
We know that the whole backstory about overturning the election are incompatible with a basic civics education of the election process, and yet outlets like CNN promote the myth.
And so they lose the faith of the public
@WarnerCrocker Well of course it has a lot to do with politics since political decisions impacted the money supply which impacted the prices charged for that money.
@Sheril and this is exactly why we shouldn't be leaving such decisions up to such people in the first place.
And it's not how the system was designed.
So the problem is not that there's a lack of diversity among the decision makers. The problem is that these people should not be making such decisions in the first place.
@fkamiah17 Well that's a ridiculous perspective, kind of a gaslighty one, since clearly we are not responsible for multiple reasons.
Just not a factually possible position.
@dougiec3 No, that's not how the Supreme Court works.
The court isn't dragging out a decision. It's working through its normal process, this is a normal timeline for it. And you can contrast it with the rushed decision on the election ballot issue to see why it normally takes its time.
Speculation about things like that are unhelpful at best, and flat out misleading and conspiratorial at worst.
The Supreme Court is by design slow to act. There are two other branches that are meant to be quick, the Supreme Court is the counterweight to them.
@realcaseyrollins Oh God no TikTok is the worst.
In fact if I heard that a podcast was being advertised on tiktok, that would be a sign that it's not worth listening to, that it appeals to the same superficial audience that that platform appeals to.
I find podcasts mostly by reading articles and other sorts of reports, finding out that the authors of interesting reports participate in podcasts, and then checking them out.
Who's talking about ridiculousness? We're talking about the lack of hoarding, so if he is spending ridiculously instead of hoarding, then he's still not hoarding, which is the point.
You think it's ridiculous that he's not hoarding, well, sounds like that's something you need to work out in your own head.
I would say that it's a good thing such a ridiculous person just gave up a bunch of his money. Good thing that money is no longer sitting in the bank account of a ridiculous person.
So this is a sign that rich people don't hoard their money. You seem to think that this is a particularly ridiculous rich person, so even better that he's not hoarding his money.
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:
