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
#Musk has incentive here to protect the agency and expand its budget, if anything, since the company relies on affirmative action from the agency to operate.
Should the agency be defunded SpaceX will be left without licensing to operate.
ProPublica all too often goes for sensational takes rather than realistic ones.
They know.
That unelected judges can't control the actions of the executive branch is a basic part of civics, a fundamental part of the US system of co-equal branches.
Justices on the SCOTUS are aware as they know how the US government functions.
I just wish more Americans knew how their government worked.
People don't seem to realize that pretty much EVERY administration defies the will of the courts in their terms. #Biden did, #Obama did, going on back. There were ALWAYS occasions where presidents did things in violation of court order.
It just doesn't always get much press coverage, for better or worse.
Such defiance isn't new or outside of the structure of the #Constitution. No, the Constitution anticipates and provides for a solution from Congress.
In the end, it's up to the people voters elect to represent them in Congress to judge appropriate responses, ranging from defunding through impeachment.
So hold your representatives accountable. They escape accountability all too often.
@cybso no, it isn't the reason for the 2nd Amendment.
It all comes down to the people that we elect to Congress. It's up to them, in the end, to make the judgement call as to whether what the Executive Branch does is acceptable, so we always need to scrutinize the representative each of us votes for.
All too often we vote to re-empower politicians who are flat out screwing up but pointing fingers at the other branch.
Oh, I'd say SCOTUS did learn that, which lead it it being so unpopular on social media and within some political and power circles.
Recently a friend said we're about to see the Red Lobstering of the #US, referring to the time the restaurant chain was bought out, had its supply chain directed vertically, and then sent into bankruptcy.
At first I thought he was just going on one of his normally nutty rants, but then I realized he had a point, just in the opposite way from what he meant.
We've been in the Red Lobstering process for a long time. Measures ranging from national debt through public dissatisfaction with how power has been used point to that.
So what we're seeing now is the end of the story, not the beginning: the bankruptcy.
I always point out that #Trump is the result, not the cause. In this case, he's tearing things up like the bankruptcy administrator when things can't keep going as they were.
Yes, it's painful. Bankruptcy always is. And it didn't have to be this way.
But here we are.
Right, but the problem is, the coders will be saying the accountants were doing a bad coding job.
They're unclear as to where one field begins and the other ends.
Right, but the problem is, the coders will be saying the accountants were doing a bad coding job.
They're unclear as to where one field begins and the other ends.
I'd say the function of the Fediverse is to provide a communication platform.
How we communicate over that platform can be varied, with different people and communities using the platform in very different ways. Some passive, some active.
It's infrastructure. How we use it is up to each of us.
That's misinformation, though.
No, SCOTUS didn't give Trump presidential immunity. Quite the opposite. They ordered that the lower courts continue Trump's prosecution.
The Court merely said that presidents, Biden or Trump, aren't allowed to prosecute where there isn't a valid charge. It wasn't that crazy of a ruling.
As for the midterms, it's up to states to conduct their elections, so it's not up to Trump.
@dougiec3 Congress is a compliant rubber stamp?
That's news to Republicans who are complaining loudly that Congress is not moving forward with legislation to fulfill Trump's empty promises.
No, Congress has shown itself not to be a rubber stamp. Otherwise that legislation would be on his desk by now.
@randahl I don't know about on fire, but he really doesn't know what he's talking about
@annecavicchi No clue. Behind the paywall we can't see it if we did care or not.
@europesays Well because they're not worth covering.
I'd also say, I suspect there have been protests in all 50 states that also weren't worth covering, and that's why we don't really know about them.
These protests are without substance. So people are going to keep yelling, like they always do, they're not worth listening to.
@SenatorMoobs No, you misunderstand the argument.
It's not that states should be free to establish religious doctrine, It's the opposite, that states are bound not to be able to oppose religious doctrine.
@Flora IMO The solution is not to treat this as a systemic problem but rather a UI problem.
The key is not to rely on some method to make the people that you don't want to hear from go away (putting that diplomatically) but rather to not have their stuff shown to you because you don't want to see it.
In other words, let the trolls talk and talk until they are blue in the face and run out of oxygen. Just don't show it to me,. Then it's not about objectively judging who is or who is not a troll, it's just, I don't want to see that, so I shouldn't see that.
So it's a UI/UX problem. There's no objective way to solve it? Right, so let's treat it in the subjective domain.
How does this work practically? Well, just off the top of my head let users have a lot of control over their own block lists, or let them subscribe to moderators who approve or disapprove certain posts to appear on lists, things like that.
Maybe I want to see a little more edgy content. Maybe you want to see a little less. We can both be satisfied if we treat this as subscribing to moderators or judges that will mark them as more edgy or less edgy.
I really believe this is the way forward.
@FantasticalEconomics really?
This kind of childishness and posturing is how he got in this position in the first place.
@Sandywb The head of his Department has decided that he should have access to Department information for the good of the Department.
If he's getting into information he shouldn't have access to, that means the entire department shouldn't have that information. Which is a perfectly fine stance to take, but we've been warning about that for years, and that horse has left the barn.
It's like saying you shouldn't have access to your own financial records. Well, they're your records.
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:
