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
@ShadSterling your example is a great one of how people talk about this sort of thing divorced from factual reality.
And it's why these laws are a good thing.
No, a car company producing a car with a known flaw is not intentionally choosing to harm or kill. That is just not the factual reality of even that hypothetical, much less its application in the real world.
The decision to produce a product with a known flaw is a decision to produce the product, not to kill people. The two are not the same. To conflate the two is to put rhetoric above reality.
Of course, that never stops sensational reporting that gets clicks or politicized propaganda that supports powerful interests. Yeah, they do enjoy the benefits of promoting that kind of falsehood.
But, we set up legal processes such that people won't be harmed by that kind of misinformation.
@MarcNo transferred costs around, screwed up other people's healthcare, but they didn't hit the headlines so don't worry about them.
@servelan The nice thing is that the Supreme Court has been clear that presidents are limited in their authority to prosecute people.
With all of the hand ringing about that lately, it seems really misplaced when those limitations might be ones that Trump runs into real soon.
@zinnia Well it's because the benefits of creating such a world were balanced against the risks.
I don't think that should be offensive to you, but a whole lot of people benefited from it, even if you personally weren't particularly interested in that.
@PNS All his events?
Anyone who is familiar with his schedule realizes that he is not canceling all his events, so this headline, well just don't trust whoever this outlet is. It's just another misleading outlet.
@Nonilex do you realize how suspect it is that you are apparently relying on people with vested interests to bring up these reinterpretations of their enemies?
It's one thing for a crockpot to start talking about their interpretation of secret symbols, but it's different when the source has a vested interest in tipping the scales, in making you believe that their reinterpretation of the secret symbols overrides the clear meaning.
At that point it goes from merely crazy to actual propaganda.
@AndyHarrison editors, apparently.
@theseeduneed That's all propaganda, though.
No, there's no playbook to get around the Constitution as president. By definition there isn't. There can't be.
So this guy is really doing a disservice promoting these sensational positions that are clearly just nonsensical.
It's just sad that he would be dragging his ancestors into it like this.
@AndyHarrison from what I've heard the complaint is that 10 days is too long.
So this isn't really counter to that.
@guardian It's really funny to read the phrase that populism is causing authoritarianism.
There's an inherent conflict in those two concepts.
@ShadSterling a lot of people miss that investments only pay off if they benefit someone else. So when that 5% of incomes put their money toward investment, the only benefit if other people benefit. There's only a payday if someone else thinks what they provide is worth paying for.
But fine, this thread isn't about the financial aspect.
The problem is, there's a legitimate question about who's to blame for a death when there's an organization involved.
If a Chipotle cashier doesn't wash their hands and poisons someone, do you blame the cashier, or the cashiers manager, or the CEO, or the person who invested their 401K into buying stock in the company?
Who actually has to pay for the death? Who is actually responsible?
Corporate law has been developed to provide certainty and a practical framework for answering that question.
It's one thing to say that corporate law shields people from culpability, but when you start thinking about it, it's a lot more complicated than just the superficial take on it.
@opethminded again you seem to be begging the question that the person the people democratically want is the way to go.
The design of the US government was recognizing interests of, for example, state and local governments aside from the interests of me and you. There are very fair reasons to consider the interactions between state and local governments and reflect them in the election of a president.
In any case, state by state the people get to determine through their state representation whether they have winner take all assignment of electors or not.
So as it is, arguably democracy has chosen not to go the way you would prefer in many cases, so we should recognize that democratic choice not to have winner take all elections.
@Colman @ShadSterling @dcjohnson there has been so much misinformation about Citizens United.
If you read the ruling Kennedy made it very clear, he went on at length in the ruling, that they were recognizing the roles of citizens uniting (ha) to take power back from the rich and influential.
As Kennedy said, the rich people were not restrained by these laws, so it was a mistake to say that me and you couldn't pool our resources in that way to speak truth to power.
CU absolutely did not transfer power to corporations. It simply recognized the legal ability, the constitutionally protected ability, for everyday people to associate with each other to express ourselves and not be drowned out by the rich.
@OhOkKay I mean, I'd just like if he would move back to comedy...
@breedlov It just emphasizes, if you don't want a president to do things you don't want him to do with the authorities you've given him, maybe revoke those authorities.
@csolisr Well that assumes particular goals and motivations.
Downhill 'em? You're assuming that's not exactly the goal!
@jonny The problem is that such norms very often end up misleading people into false senses of security, and we're seeing that play out right here right now on Fediverse where people are publishing content without realizing that they are setting it free to the world.
@europesays The federal investigations disproved those claims, though.
@ShadSterling You're kind of missing the point there.
The US has designed corporate regulations because these instruments of providing for investment benefit its citizens.
It's BECAUSE the US cares about its citizens that it has more effective corporate rules to promote the general welfare.
And it's pretty noteworthy that internationally over the decades other countries have worked to catch up with the US as they were finding themselves falling behind for their citizens.
@opethminded But you're assuming that matching the popular vote is a good thing.
The EC was built on the premise that there are better ways to do things than just matching the popular vote.
So it kind of begs the question to say that matching the popular vote would be better when the issue is that it might not be at all.
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:
