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
@mhjohnson I'd go the other way: if Democrats had run a better candidate they would have beaten Trump in 2024.
They shouldn't focus on throwing the game in 2020. They should have just not run such a terrible candidate so they could have won both 2020 and 2024.
I mean I'm citing the Supreme Court opinion, their own words. I'm citing my sources.
If you think I'm wrong, if you think I'm ignorant, please put your counter evidence on their table.
Or at least consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you've been misled by folks looking to spread disinformation.
I have Supreme Court rulings backing me up. What do you have backing you?
@bespacific that gets it backwards, though.
It's not that the Court is acting as legislators, but rather refusing to act as legislators supporting legislation they prefer.
They say regardless of whether some action is good or bad, that's not for us to decide, we must look at the laws already on the books and insist that the actual legislators legislate.
@enobacon keep in mind that the choose-only-one primaries are there as a solution to issues in the balloting system we normally use.
The primary process is effectively a weak way to get ranked choice voting to replace the one we use.
Unless we change our balloting system, we need the choose-only-one primaries to help voters organize their votes.
@mral No, the SCOTUS didn't say money is speech. Yes, a lot of people repeat that misinformation, but it's counter to their rulings.
In fact, in CU they agree with you about looking at volume.
And in the CU ruling Kennedy specifically said that their ruling would COUNTER the few powerful people who are able to shout down everyone else regardless.
Supreme Court is on your side in this one. It's just that a lot of people get the rulings backwards, even though the opinions went out of their way to be clear.
@CelloMomOnCars
@MikeImBack no, they're not off the hook. It was just the wrong hook. They were never on it to begin with because it was the wrong branch of government to look at.
They're still on the hook for any probes in Congress, the only body in a position to conduct the probe.
So the folks we elected are in the position to follow up, as they have always been.
@SenatorMoobs Originalists might also say that the Establishment Clause no longer applies only to the feds as it was extended through later amendments, through incorporation.
Originalists recognize that laws change. They simply also consider the original meanings of the revised laws.
@naturehopper.bsky.social it's not that they won't refer but that they CAN'T refer. That's not how the US government works.
Wrong branch of government.
It's up to the people we elect to Congress to act on claims that warrant action, and so far they've found the allegations to be pretty empty.
@TCatInReality Well what specific weaknesses do you have in mind?
@TCatInReality he has a very good point if you look at the actual decisions instead of following sensationalized news articles from clickbait sources.
So really you're just reinforcing his point here.
@europesays this sort of article comes from people who fundamentally don't know how the Senate works. And that's a shame, because McConnell had a tenure marked by power all based on the general public being misinformed about the Senate.
@Quantillion No, at this point the Democratic party is not really focused on any policy at all. Harris was rightly criticized for not talking about policy, she didn't seem able to talk about policy when she was repeatedly asked about it, interviewed about it, invited to talk about it, etc.
Like I said, garbage candidate. Not garbage policy because the candidate was so garbage that she couldn't even talk about policy.
YES! That artisan is putting the capital in capitalism.
That is exactly what I'm telling you.
Doesn't matter if you like it or not, but yes, that is capitalism at its purist. That person with capital holding capital controlling capital and applying capital to their own personal benefit, driving value from the capital that they have used to capitalize their shop, yes that is a capitalist operating in a capitalist system.
@nielso specifically, one problem is that any distributed system involves overhead, necessarily. It trades efficiency and resource usage for advantages of being distributed.
So the problem is how do you take an already inefficient system and use it for relatively resource intensive media like video content? It's bad enough trading text around, but video increases resource requirements exponentially.
It's a hard problem to solve, and it's not one that ActivityPub seemed really focused on addressing. So in the end this is a technical issue that the underlying technology of this platform isn't really cut out for video.
@ErikUden Well good thing Bitcoin isn't stuck with a singular unit that expensive and can instead be traded at far lower fractions.
One major feature of Bitcoin is specifically that it isn't bound by that kind of issue.
@FinalOverdrive what?
Individuals own capital. Individualism might be a singular foundation of capitalism.
@tofugolem or an honest way to reflect the language we use in formal contexts such as law.
@Itdidnttrickledown well, I suppose that's how echo chambers work...
volkris
boosted
The song "All I want for Christmas is you" is insulting.
"I don't want much for Christmas...."
+
"All I want for Christmas is you."
=
You are not much.
@Lyle it's so important to keep in mind that Trump's own base regards these as empty threats.
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
