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
SCOTUS, Grant's Pass criminalization of sleeping outside
@maeve the ordinance in question is emphatically not about criminal sanctions, though.
Those claims about the case are just wrong.
@KeithDJohnson no, that's factually not at all what's going on in the SCOTUS case.
In fact, the ordinance that's before the Court right now is emphatically not about putting anyone in prison.
So no, SCOTUS is not making homelessness illegal. All of these claims being repeated are completely misinformative.
@marius_gs I mean, it probably is, though.
@CosmicTraveler If the court is illegitimate then expanding it is pointless. It just makes for a court that remains illegitimate, but now takes more resources and time and provides more chaos in arriving at illegitimate results.
But no, it's not illegitimate. Many people just forget that it's not meant to be a legislative body.
When it points out that laws are badly written, that means we need to stop reelecting bad lawmakers.
@touaregtweet well, it more reflects failure of Biden's administration to prosecute Trump properly.
We can't let him off the hook for that.
@freemo you're leaning heavily into a strawman argument here, a very common one.
A vote is an expression of a stance. What you're proposing is that we should take various stances and just funnel them all into one stance that will in many cases be completely opposite to the voters' own positions.
For example, I won't vote for either Biden or Trump because I believe both parties need to nominate better candidates. They must if they want my vote. So many others share my position.
We hope that the parties, particularly the losing party, will take that position to heart in the future.
BUT as different people will frame our position as support for either candidate, instead of rejection for both, is to get our position exactly backwards AND miss the call to change, to put forward a better nominee.
The strawman argument of voting for something instead of rejection substitutes what we actually believe for something completely backwards of what we believe, missing the call for a solution in the process.
@jonburr no.
It's like, if you offer an illegal bribe to someone, that money wasn't stolen.
Similar thing here.
@farbel no, it's emphasized that there is no proposed punishment at all in this ordinance.
That's so important here.
Emphatically, the ordinance provides that officials will provide help and ask the people to move along.
@cra1g if you're talking about the reference to the CLI brief, firstly I wouldn't say that's a mainstream expression as it was submitted as a technical analysis on behalf of a legal institution, and secondly, the brief was absolutely couched in terms of the state's position.
So it wasn't against states' rights but emphasizing them.
@Koochulainn no, not at all.
@fogmount believe it or not, congressional reporters often relay superficial versions of events that are (hopefully) oversimplified for the sake of what they think their readers want.
When a reporter skips the complexities of a rule voted on by the Rules Committee, for example, they're missing a complicated step in House procedure, but without including that step their readers won't have a full picture of what just happened.
Here's something real for you to check out if you'd like. Go through the list of votes on April 20th. I heard no mainstream reporter actually report that process, and yet the reality was just that complicated.
@icedquinn I'd rephrase that:
They're supposed to annoy people AND they don't work :)
I've seen so many cases where folks who would normally be on board with the cause tune them out at best or flat out turn and work against the cause after feeling harassed.
The problem is that it's not a good strategy in the first place. Annoying the people you need buy-in from is always going to be a pretty questionable tact.
@BohemianPeasant but they're not criminalizing homelessness in this case.
All of the people trying to criticize the case on that basis are repeating rhetoric that just doesn't apply, so it doesn't move the ball.
@RonaldTooTall
@farbel no, the ordinance before the court expressly provides no such punishment.
@PattyHanson you misunderstand the argument, though.
It's not that homeless could ever be a state, but that IN THIS CASE, the case before the Court, the context of the ordinance doesn't reach that far.
Yes, homelessness could be a status, but that status is not part of this ordinance, is what Roberts was alluding to.
@doctorLURK fuck no, and that's also not what is before the Supreme Court, so.
@maegul the key is to emphasize empowering the user to get the experience the individual user wants.
If a user wants only microblogging, then he can choose an interface that ONLY shows microblogging, if that's what best suits him.
All of the other content available does him no harm. His UI will just ignore it.
This is just an example of one way that UIs can give users what they want, the simplest example. Other UIs will serve users differently.
All of the content transmitted into the system give UIs more flexibility to serve users, so always focus on that serving of users, not on the publishing side.
@jonburr well, the charge isn't that it was stolen as much as illegally used and then hidden from required taxes.
@thisismissem consider savory options like stuffed peppers.
@ralfmaximus bingo.
That's why Trump has this ceiling that so many people miss or misunderstand, and why projections based on historical campaigns don't apply cleanly to Trump.
I hear SO MANY making projections that follow trendlines into the independent crowd without realizing that so many will not vote for Trump under any circumstances.
Many conservatives are happily optimistic because they think that once independents compare #Trump and #Biden, why, they'll obviously prefer Trump's policies and they state of the world under Trump.
They don't understand that so many will refuse to make that comparison in the first place, will refuse to even consider voting for Trump no matter what.
It's both sad and infuriating.
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:
