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
@Callalily or maybe his job will be even more protected and easier.
Federal employees have been dealing with more and more crud over the years, complaining more and more but not getting any relief.
We'll see what happens, but this might be for the best for so many employed by the federal government.
@Nonilex It's not directing agencies.
@muiren personal insults?
You misunderstand. I didn't intend any personal insult, I don't know who you are, how would I insult you personally?
I will point out that what your writing comes across as nutty. I don't assume you are actually nutty, I just think if you want to make an argument, you should know that your presentation is not convincing because it sounds really out there.
Again, nothing personal. It's a criticism of a communication strategy, not you yourself.
But no, your facts are also wrong, but that's a separate matter from the fact that you just put forward statements that sound like the crazy guy at the end of the bar that nobody's going to take seriously.
If you want to convince people over to your side and to make a compelling argument against the other side then the way you're framing things here isn't going to be successful.
And again that's even setting aside your facts being wrong.
@muiren at its heart a conspiracy suggests something with different actors working together, which is what you described. You can add on different connotations, and in this case the connotation that I was going for was highlighting just how nutty and hand wavy what you were saying was.
Again, the point is that if you want to counter the other side, you're not going to get anywhere if you just sound crazy. Or at least misled by propaganda, which is exactly how you come off, and that's why that message doesn't resonate.
I'm happy to stick with the denotation of conspiracy just being different actors working together, but if you really want to go into the different suggestions of the term, that's the important one there.
Whether or not you criticize Democrats has nothing to do with the fact that this particular stance of yours is pretty off the wall.
> Instead they keep giving massive tax breaks, transferring massive wealth to the #kleptocratic #brOligarchs who put them in power because of the Citizens United v. FEC ruling by the corruption of #SCOTUS.
Republicans made inroads with the general public, and it wasn't because of some plot involving some massive wealth transfer and the people at the top, the Supreme Court, might as well throw in Illuminati and lizard people if you're going that direction.
No, Republicans just had the argument that was more appealing to more voters. If you want to fight against them, well then Democrats need to have a better argument to appeal to voters.
Blaming this kind of thing doesn't solve the problem. It just makes your side sound even less electable.
In the US system of government separation of powers is a core feature to make sure nobody gets too much power and to promote cooperation and consensus. With power separated different groups with different incentives have to work together to make things happen.
That's why it's so disappointing to see people missing the separation of powers issue when it comes to #Congress and spending.
We all hear the phrase power of the purse, too many don't understand what it actually entails. Yes, Congress has the power to open the purse, but it absolutely does not have the power to spend. There are a lot of ways to prove that, but let me emphasize that this is a separation of powers issue.
The power to authorize spending is separated from the power to actually spend, which happens over in the executive branch.
In the US system the legislative branch does not spend, that happens from the executive branch. And a whole lot of congresspeople are insisting on a power grab to claim that power for themselves.
I wish the public knew better, to easily deflect that power grab.
@Nonilex critical remarks?
If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, what's been in the news, they weren't critical remarks but potential physical threats.
Pretty big difference there.
@muiren What in the world?
If you don't understand why the public voted for Republicans, and it's not because of that conspiracy theory that you seem to be promoting, then you're not going to be able to oppose them and counter their argument.
If you don't understand the enemy then you can't fight them.
@RememberUsAlways again, in its ruling SCOTUS made the point that the wealthy were already able to buy influence outside of these organizations.
These orgs help level the playingfield against those who don't need them to buy influence.
@Doreen32128
@AnonomousWolf on this platform it's all about hashtags, so the functionality is already there, AFAIK.
Users can add the common hashtags to their filters.
Well, it's really that the US Executive Branch--not the US or even the entire US government, just that one branch--has a Supreme Leader... which it constitutionally does as the Constitution provides that "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
This is a key part of checks and balances.
@wdhughes.bsky.social members of congress serve states, not the federal government, so the recall process varies from state to state.
It's not really a SCOTUS thing but a state thing.
@Nonilex that's not what SCOTUS ruled, though.
It didn't grant immunity to presidents. It restrained presidents for prosecuting over specific categories of action.
You're getting the ruling backwards on multiple dimensions.
@SonofaGeorge no, that's not how the Senate works, despite what so many politicians would have you believe.
ANY senator can move to consider such a nomination, and if the Senate wants to do it then it doesn't matter on iota what McConnell thought. He would be overruled and the nomination would proceed.
The story wasn't constitutional... and it didn't happen. It couldn't have happened under the rules of the Senate.
Garland simply didn't have support of the senators, but they were all happy to let McConnell be the fall guy instead of having to go on the record about it.
@GaryRLundberg
@RememberUsAlways no, that's the opposite of what happened.
In their ruling SCOTUS pointed out that that money was already able to flow, and wasn't on the table for the question before them, so they were leveling the playingfield, allowing us to organize AGAINST that money.
@Doreen32128
@ronsparks.bsky.social@bsky.brid.gy I think you overestimate the amount of power that a single federal senator sitting in DC has over a state.
Yes, exactly. We have so many promoting the norm that a voter HAS to vote, and if they don't then they're actually voting for the other guy.
If only we could push back against that common rhetoric we have a good chance of getting better candidates and better government in the end.
When the norm is that the parties have to actually run people worth voting for, or else voters will stay home, then they'll be motivated to stop running such trash candidates.
You can see how we ended up with #Trump vs #Harris as the two parties relied on opposition to the other rather than actually putting forward quality candidates.
@GetMisch remember: last year the Dems were voting with Republican extremists in the House.
It's not just that Dems are rolling over. They're actively encouraging all of this.
But... we elected them. We should stop reelecting them.
What in the world? That position is pretty out there, and expert after expert on the matter said the exact opposite, and with Russia's size, population, and industrial base they have the more likely position.
Ukraine had the upper hand? It was projected that Russia would run out of resources? Both of those claims are really pretty nutty considering what open source information tells us all with our own eyes.
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:
