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
@cmdr_nova@mkultra.monster It's not election interference. The election can go on as it wants to.
It's responding to users who don't want to see that stuff, giving them the experience they prefer from the platform.
@ainmosni I think you're overlooking that BlueSky interface is surprisingly lacking in features, and that holds back its adoption.
It also had surprisingly slow development.
With those two factors alone it really shot itself in the foot, overcoming any benefit it may have gotten from marketing.
In any case, the system itself is distributed and technically in a way that's probably superior to fediverse, but the developer missteps have left it looking kind of tragic at this point.
@losttourist It's not a question of choosing to allow proper native integration with AP, though. The two systems are not natively compatible at their cores, and those incompatibilities make proper native integration impossible.
At best there can be translators to bridge between the two.
The two systems were simply designed differently with AP focusing on instances and bluesky focusing on users
@Infrogmation What you said here is incoherent.
If he's fucked then this isn't about other people being disposable toys.
What in the world are you talking about?
@Scienceisnotopinions but that's not the idea.
You're looking at only a cost without considering the benefit, so you're only considering part of the picture.
We burn gas to benefit humans. We don't do it for fun, we do it because it makes people's lives better.
So we might lower the price of gas so that more people can have better lives. And that is arguably a great idea.
@samohTmaS That's hilarious because libertarians bash the Republican party for having such an anti-libertarian platform, when they have one at all.
@normalguy The thing is, I work in academia, and I and so many of my colleagues are completely frustrated with MSM misreporting things in our various areas of expertise.
Once you see MSM saying things that you know to be false because it's what you do for a living, well you start to see why so many fellow Americans have lost all faith in that reporting. More and more MSM publishes articles that you know to be false because they're saying things that run counter to your own area of professional expertise.
So yeah, the fact that you publish some articles from outlets that we know to be unreliable doesn't really say anything.
Anyway, in this case I don't support any candidate. I emphatically blame both major parties for nominating candidates that are not worth supporting. I absolutely say that we need to hold the two major parties accountable for their failure to nominate someone worth voting for.
The Democrats are a particular disappointment because they skipped the democratic process that might have resulted in a better candidate, one I would have wanted to support.
Republicans are just lost in this cycle. They didn't want to win. They just wanted to fight, and that's obnoxious, and they deserve to lose. But the Democratic party could have nominated someone worth voting for.
But instead we got this terrible selection without democratic input.
BBC reports that in response to calls to lock #Trump up, #Harris said the courts would take care of that, not only toeing the line to prejudice, but more strikingly... it's as if this is yet another case where she doesn't know what the different branches of government actually do, she doesn't know locking people up is an executive branch function?
As she's applying to be the head of the executive branch?
But no, that level of ignorance does seem to be pretty consistent with what she has shown for years now.
The Democratic Party did not have to such an incompetent candidate. And I'm going to say it over and over because it's so depressing, the party really let us down.
Nothing will change if we don't hold the party accountable.
@stefan can you mention the goals of the signature of verification system?
The #DemocraticParty sure has made a mess of things choosing #Harris.
But this kind of thing shows #journalism has already lost so much respect.
It all goes to show how the US came to be in the state that it's in.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/cbs-accused-significant-intentional-news-195151613.html
@mu I mean, I'd respond that it's such a privilege to not only own books but to have the leisure time to read them, so in that context we should be making the most of what we have, that our ancestors didn't, and using that opportunity for self-advancement with better books is a calling.
@cedar thanks!
I'd say that's close, but with one key step: yes, let's be solutions oriented, but part of getting to the right solution is properly identifying the problem.
To say homelessness is violence is to misidentify the problem, and that stands in the way of finding a solution, both practically and in terms of getting people on board.
On that last point, you mention inciting action to fix the problem, and that's one way this is counterproductive: if you say homelessness is violence, that will turn a lot of allies off as they say, "Well, that's clearly false" and walk away from the effort.
I watched the interview directly, so if the articles describe something different from what I saw with my own eyes, well, there's a good reason journalism has lost so much legitimacy lately.
But I will say, one of the weak parts of Harris's interview was her frequent dodgy by trying to talk about Trump when the question was about her.
So same thing here.
It's exactly why we criticize whataboutism.
Yes, Trump is awful, but we're talking about Harris here, not Trump. And Baier kept trying to get her to talk about her own points of view, again, not about Trump, but she kept going back to whatabout Trump?
She came across as incredibly weak and incompetent and unable to lay out her own ideas, always having to dodge to other things... like Trump.
People keep talking about that as a lion's den, but the questions Baier was asking, that she refused to answer, seemed like a great opportunity for her to connect with the audience.
She failed to do so, and that's on her.
@dougiec3 well, it's not really their call.
The Supreme Court rules on law, what is law, not what should be.
That's really a question for the Congress that writes the law, not the Court that's bound by what our representatives pass.
There's the running question of how #Harris could be managing to perform so badly that she can't run away with the election against such a broken candidate as #Trump.
Well, the interview last night answers the question: she's either incapable or unwilling to connect with half the country.
That interview would have been a slam dunk for a competent candidate. She blew it, providing a TON of fodder for #GOP speakers to bash her, and they're having a field day pointing it out today.
The #DemocraticParty is to blame here. By skipping consultation with their voters and instead jumping right to this obviously weak candidate, the whole country is now saddled with this mess.
Well, I guess we'll try again in four years.
@MusiqueNow you say he's innocent, but court after court reviewed the guilty verdict, as they must in the US, and didn't find substantial evidence that it was incorrectly decided.
That group of politicians does the public no favors undermining the justice process like this.
Unscathed? She is getting roundly hauled over the coals today with criticism from the left and the right from that performance.
In fact, the performance is seen as such a disaster that even Trump supporters are begging people to watch the interview in full. It was that damaging.
@Nonilex he didn't cut off answers, he cut off non sequiturs that avoided the question, as he tends to do in his interview.
Depressed Harris to actually answer the questions instead of wasting time with more more of the deflections that she's become pretty criticized for.
@Nonilex but she looked like she utterly melted down and was not only unable to answer the questions but actively refusing to answer the questions put to her.
Yeah, she reached a new audience, but boy she looked bad and unable to do the job. That's not a good thing for her.
@yuribackinthehood@kolektiva.social
Well the weird thing is that we agree on the facts, but what you're expressing above deviates from the thing that you just said.
You described the owners, so the fact is they own the property, so we have the same perspective on that. And then you described violations of their property. So they're being violated, just in the story that you tell.
There's no propaganda there, there's just the story that you're telling, the perspective that you're laying out.
So I'm agreeing with you and highlighting that violation.
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:
