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
@wjmaggos really it's one of those cases where the reason we aren't implementing a solution is because society is legitimately split on what to do. We simply don't have a consensus about how to handle immigration. Without consensus we are simply paralyzed.
It doesn't take any conspiracy theory among employers or anything like that, the public simply doesn't have a consensus direction to go, so we're stuck.
Maybe someday we will have public sentiment solidify in One direction or the other, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.
@realTuckFrumper and Republicans bash Liz Cheney for being a dumbass.
I don't think this strategy is really going to do anything for anybody. It's just silly.
@johnzajac What media do you see that is reporting with the same level of credulity? I never see that.
I'm constantly seeing the media bashing the Trump side but not the Harris side. You can see it every single day even in things like news briefs on where they are appearing each day, pointing out that Harris is appearing at one place and Trump is appearing and lying at a different place.
The difference in credulity is not only abundantly clear but part of why so many have lost faith in the media.
It's not only real but a real problem.
@theguardian_us_opinion this article is written by a person who doesn't know enough about the US conservative world to have the context in which to interpret Trump's statements as his supporters do.
He more or less speaks a different language, he uses references that his supporters are extremely familiar with, but this reporter isn't aware of, so the article is really out of its depth.
In the end it really says more about the reporter than about Trump, says more about the state of #journalism today than about #USPolitics.
The comments about eating pets, for example, referenced a trope that is well known in the conservative media world. But this reporter doesn't seem aware of that, and so thinks it's something Trump came up with.
@chiefgyk3d Well we shouldn't overlook the responsibility of the people who bought into what the cryptobros were selling.
We all bear some responsibility when we hand over money for obviously stupid gimmicks.
@chiefgyk3d Well we shouldn't overlook the responsibility of the people who bought into what the cryptobros were selling.
We all bear some responsibility when we hand over money for obviously stupid gimmicks.
@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...
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
