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
@freeschool sure, I spend a lot of time learning about the different designs of different systems and try to let people know about how they work.
This is my professional background, BTW, working on distributed systems. So I'm very interested in seeing what people are coming up with and, well, pointing out potential flaws that I see because hopefully it will lead to a better system in the end!
@collectifission plus, there's the role that even satirical media can promote things it may be satirizing via contrast.
For example, the message that real world nuclear workers would embrace Homer as an example of what NOT to do may be compelling in its own right.
@Lazarou investment in people can be a solid part of making advancements in metrics like improving pollution.
@europesays what? Conservatives roll that out pretty often because so many think it's hilarious; they make fun of progressives with the line.
They are't losing their minds. They're using it as a joke at the rhetorical expense of their rivals.
@freeschool build up instead of tearing down
@ahltorp do you realize how nutty a person sounds with that kind of comment?
You're really leaning into crazy conspiracy theory land.
@copter_chief fortunately, some parts of the government still respect the idea of judicial independence and will judge Thomas on substance, not on this muckracking.
@Savvyhomestead no, the prosecutors who stood in front of the judges failed to do their jobs.
They chose strategies that were overly complex, legally dubious, and on nonsensical timelines. It was their choice, as prosecutors, and they chose badly.
There was absolutely no need to go into the longshot charges and sketchy filings when simple charges would have sufficed to get the guy convicted.
The prosecutors were in control here, and they botched their cases.
@fleeky they shared what they had, right? They put what they had toward the uses they saw best?
That IS capitalism.
People on this platform had capital that they wanted to devote toward this use, so they did. This is a triumph of capitalism! That people were able to share these resources they had brought together is capitalism at work.
@IanDSmith I don't know why you think it's a struggle.
It seems like the guy has pretty much confessed, so there's no struggle at all. There's just the question about why he doesn't proudly own what he did.
Why fight it? Proudly say, yes, I did this because I thought it was the right thing to do, if that's his stance.
@IanDSmith in general the vague intent to kick off social unrest doesn't match legal definitions of terrorism.
Terrorism generally requires a strategy to use violence to coerce personal goals, for example legislative action.
It's sounding like Luigi killed the CEO to try to pressure changes to the healthcare system. Very different from simply trying to start a race war.
@europesays The durbin report doesn't understand the separation of powers at the heart of the US government design, though. It accuses them of breaking laws that are themselves unconstitutional.
They aren't valid laws as they would undermine the concept of having an independent judiciary.
Yeah, Democrats love to throw mud at these Supreme Court justices, but it's not healthy for society, it undermines understanding of the government and respect for the rule of law.
@IanDSmith Well because he's not a mere school shooter. He's a terrorist. It's a very different crime that he committed.
@TerryHancock One important part of this fad is not relying on whatever random website to have its own solid security.
It makes for fewer points of failure.
@freezenet I mean, Luigi is seen as an evil villain by reasonable people.
And also, reasonable people understand that insurance only covers some things because otherwise insurance prices would be out of reach for more and more people because it would just be too expensive to provide.
@byteseu Well no. That's not how the US government works. It's not a parliamentary system.
The president runs the executive branch regardless of party. Meanwhile our elected representatives run their own chambers in Congress. Again, regardless of party.
I think far too often Europeans will tend to view the US government through parliamentary lenses that just don't apply to the very different style of government.
@europesays If current events like this are a mystery to you, then you don't understand current events like this.
This is how politics works.
@jcmacomber What? No.
The justices are losing the trust of the American people at the hands of reporters writing sensationalized, muck-wracking stories that get clicks.
Apparent conflicts of interest? How apparent? Well as a parent as the reporters can possibly write, as they sell ads.
We need to be real clear about how this is working. It's very antisocial, and the reporters need to be called out for the damage they're doing to society.
@kenwhite.bsky.social just goes to emphasize that we should press reporters to provide citations to such public information.
There is no reason in the world that any report about a court case doesn't provide a quick and easy link to the case itself.
But the norm, unfortunately, is for them to provide their interpretation without any link for you to follow up for more.
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
