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
But we get into a weird situation when we are even rewriting what's being said.
We can't compare what a man says vs what he does when right out of the gate we replace what he says with something different.
@quinn I deal with those systems. I'm part of the effort to ensure that we don't live in that world!
@nimi thanks.
It's curious that that would be removed, but when I go to https://www.nasa.gov/people-of-nasa/ there are plenty of women being represented front and center.
I know some institutions have been overreacting and issuing all sorts of weird directives to staff that later get rolled back when it turns out they weren't based on any substantial administrative policy. Perhaps something similar happened here.
@victorvonvortex @hacks4pancakes
@Lurkle@mstdn.social
Sometimes the story is so obviously unrealistic that it deserves to be dismissed out of hand. It's like involving flat Earth theories in healthcare decisions. No obviously that's not how that works.
If our control of nuclear material was so tenuous, then you might as well give up on everything. The danger to every single person would be palpable and continuous regardless of who's in office. Anyone who wants to do bad things could just grab some radioactive material and build a dirty bomb. Fortunately, that's not how this works, and obviously that's not how this works.
These stories deserve to be dismissed because they just don't make sense. They obviously don't make sense. Why in the world would we set up procedures with such obvious, unmitigated points of failure for such serious risks? Obviously we wouldn't.
So whoever is spreading this misinformation, think about it a little bit. Realize that the politicized story they are selling really just doesn't make any sense.
And then stop listening to those people.
This has nothing to do with science.
But if anything, firing the workforce is the enemy of fascism. You can't really impose fascist will without employees.
@hacks4pancakes specifically what is being deleted?
Isn't it obvious? If a couple of days of employment confusion leads to such dire consequences then we have much much deeper problems.
Our systems are much more rigorous than that. You think we're going to set up a system that can so collapse if somebody is out sick for a couple of days? No. Obviously that's not how we do things.
And as for source, this is a field I work in. I'm part of the team that makes sure things are not so fragile.
Don't believe the sensationalism. Those stories just don't make sense.
@davidaugust and here you are promoting that perception then.
If we're going to focus so much on perception then it would seem you should be a little more careful promoting stories that degrade the perception that you want to maintain.
But perception aside, this is the kind of story that so often ends up being debunked, but more importantly, it's not really in line with the reporting that's going around. And it's not in line with good practices anyway.
If our system is so fragile that 2 days worth of employment confusion would be so critical then there were major problems in the first place.
Fortunately, things don't tend to be that fragile.
@quinn No, that's not how it works.
There's a whole lot of people running around talking about the sky falling, but they're just promoting misinformation. That's not how any of this works.
Don't believe people who try to sell that kind of sensational story.
@davidaugust meh, That's not really how that works.
The NNSA staff that were fired weren't exactly providing the containment themselves. They were pretty removed from the on-the-ground work that actually keeps us safe and secures the stockpile.
The reporting about this has been sensationalized.
@elizabethjacobs.bsky.social Well it's not so much contempt toward federal workers as it is expressing the contempt that so many in the public have these days toward federal agencies that don't seem to be doing their jobs very effectively.
Remember: Trump is a symptom, not a cause. Broad swaths of the country have lost faith in our institutions, and so they elected the guy to channel their feelings.
Yay democracy.
Indeed! Now you're rewriting my own words, saying that I am making an argument that I'm not making.
You're right that there is no point in this because like I said, I'm not interested in your alternative reality.
The record is before us. If you want to discuss the alternative reality where Trump said something different from what he actually said, and where I argued something different from what I actually argued, have fun with that?
But there's not much point trying to sell this alternative record to me.
Or how about we don't replace his words and just recognize facts instead?
The guy said what he said. We don't need to rewrite his words, we can recognize the facts, recognize the record.
Again, yeah I'm going to miss why in the world you are starting with rewriting the transcript so that it fits whatever you're trying to say. I'm sticking with what he actually said.
If you have to rewrite the record to make your point, If you have to replace his words to make your point, well I'm not interested in talking about your fantasies.
You can reimagine the world all you want, but I'm here in the real world and I'm not actually interested in talking about the fiction that you're obsessed with.
@HamonWry If that's their goal then it's pretty weird that they are promoting tax cuts and healthy lifestyles.
@BikingViking this kind of thing is why journalism has lost so much respect in the country.
Forget what's true, let's imagine this whole other world, let's promote crazy conspiracy theories!
It's amazing how often journalists will have roundtable discussions where they try to figure out why people don't find them credible anymore.
This. This is why people lost faith in journalistic institutions.
@Jennifer meh, I don't really think he is trying to enrich himself because he has plenty, and he could probably be spending his time elsewhere to make more money if he really wanted it.
No I think he's just found a next level opportunity to troll, so he's having a hecking good time getting attention in this position, while it lasts.
Again, You're running into the problem where you can't break through because step one is ignoring what he actually said and substituting something he didn't say, that you're making up.
Winning an argument? No I just have this crazy idea that we should respect fact and not rewrite what happened so that you can make whatever argument you want to make.
You're right though that you're not going to be able to break through when it would require me to ignore the facts in front of us.
And you really don't see how your paraphrasing is not the same thing that he said?
I think does not violate any law means exactly what it says, does not violate any law. It means that in the universe of laws that could be violated, the set of violated laws is empty. He said exactly what he said, does not violate any law.
You're talking about being above the law when his statement specifically says no law violation is involved here. There's no law to be above when he says that he does not violate any law.
You're trying really hard to substitate what he actually said with what you need him to have said so you can make this argument. And that's why the argument isn't really compelling, you're clearly fighting a straw man.
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:
