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
@hasani no. The Supreme Court has no say over the Legislative branch's impeachment prerogative.
They have no ability to make such a nullification.
@stylinstainless how do you feel about Putin's cabinet Picks? You seem to know a lot about him.
@TotalSonic we can't address the problems of homelessness and helping homeless people if we are busy arguing that criminalizing sleeping in certain places is criminalizing homelessness.
It's not.
So people arguing that clearly factually false statement are not going to get much purchase as they try to promote their causes.
It's a counterproductive position to take because instead of getting together behind helping the homeless instead you end up fighting about how factually incorrect it is.
@TotalSonic nobody is criminalizing homelessness.
If you frame it that way you're not helping, you're just promoting this idea that most people know is false.
@marynelson8 kind of a ignore the man behind the curtain sort of a response, yeah?
@JPummil they didn't.
That's not what happened at all.
If you want to shore up the laws on this, that's fine, look at Congress to enact legislation. Not to the Supreme Court.
@stylinstainless how do you figure?
From complaints over executive performance through legal issues, I don't know how you can say that.
@stylinstainless have you noticed how the people that Biden surrounds himself are actually kind of dumb?
No, both of these guys are ridiculous and really unqualified. Both of those two are just not worth voting for, even based on the idiots they surround themselves with.
@IgnatiusJReilly is it Biden?
Because I was talking about Biden.
@alan but again I'm trying to highlight that it's not just about how much taxes are cut or how many new services are provided, It's about how my specific representative made either intelligent or bone-headed votes in his job to provide for those.
So often I hear friends of mine complaining about some governmental policy while at the same time they support and talk about voting for the representative who cast his vote for the thing that they are complaining about.
They should be kicking that guy to the curb. He voted wrong. He voted against the interests of his constituents. But, the friends will be so focused on the faction that they let him off the hook. He escapes accountability by hiding in faction.
We need to be promoting the idea of people looking at how their representatives actually vote, and then holding them accountable for it.
Too often the focus on faction lets representatives escape accountability as it is, and you're talking about making that even worse.
@paka yep, and I've faced such shortages.
@manton keep in mind that expansion of the court would exacerbate a lot of the things that people are complaining about these days.
You think it takes a long time to issue an opinion with only this number of justices? It would exponentially increase the workload as more are added, as they all have to send opinions back and forth to negotiate with each other over the opinions they are releasing.
@jacobhyphenated That's not true at all.
The executive branch is and has always been free to take Trump to trial under other legal theories.
That they chose this theory that will take time for the court to resolve falls entirely on them. They could have changed course at any point.
@bibliolater sure but that's what I'm trying to highlight: you say disastrous performance, but so many got exactly what they wanted, and really it's dealing with those people that is the crux of the issue.
We need to engage with these morons who want a WWE fight. Unless we realize how they operate we won't be able to fix this thing.
@paka You're still missing it: You're assuming there is bread in the first place.
You're talking about large amounts of cash taken out of a business making bread, but that assumes there is a business making bread.
What if there is no business making bread?
THAT'S crucial to consider. Because if no business is making bread, then there is no bread.
volkris
boosted
@bibliolater @politics not so fast: so many Trump supporters aren't really interested in the win as much as they are interested as the fight. They explicitly just want somebody to fight.
So not so much a disastrous performance for Trump, he was providing the fight that he's basically been tapped to provide.
I disagree because I consider critiques of private healthcare to be more honest.
People who promote universal healthcare sell this fiction of just putting money in and getting healthcare out, ignoring that there are real people involved in making that happen, and they do want to get paid for their efforts. They aren't simple cogs in the machine that turns money into healthcare.
People who are critical of private healthcare, at least they are living a little bit more in reality, talking about how real world people interact with real world money.
@urlyman Yeah it's a little complicated and academically it's pretty interesting how the district voting system in the US causes very different outcomes in the overall party system.
It's one of those cases where I quote economists that say there are no solutions, only different options with different trade-offs.
@olimould That's not it at all.
The right just wants somebody to troll, and they found a troll.
The left is just following tradition for the sake of tradition. They are looking to nominate the sitting president because that's just how things work, regardless of whiteness.
It has nothing to do with whiteness.
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:
