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
@RD4Anarchy you say the rent control you experienced was voted in by the community, but you seem to be missing that I'm saying exactly that the community is welcome to vote it in!
When you point things like that out, it just sounds like you are completely missing what I'm saying. And I'm really trying to emphasize it, so I don't know what the disconnect is.
I'm saying something and you seem to be reading something completely different.
YES the community can vote it in. THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT
No, this gets the argument before the Court exactly wrong.
Both sides appearing before the Court agreed that "states have the right and the responsibility to regulate a practice that has been proven harmful to its victims." That isn't the argument here, so this editorial doesn't seem to have understood the issue.
SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to overturn the VRA, and in fact that is explicitly not what's being requested before the Court right now.
It was discussed during oral arguments, and despite what so many sensational headlines yelled, the movants before the Court specifically said they were NOT putting overturning VRA on the table.
Democracy dies when people fall for false headlines like that...
Following through to the actual TX SC decision, as best I can through the links, the ruling doesn't do what the article suggests.
This is the ruling, right? It's a clarification on Canon 4 related to activity outside of the judge's actual job, effectively related to the judge speaking in public.
So it wouldn't sanction discrimination against same-sex couples because it would operate outside authority.
If anyone has a different link, please share. I wish such articles would link to what they were talking about.
Following through to the actual TX SC decision, as best I can through the links, the ruling doesn't do what the article suggests.
This is the ruling, right? It's a clarification on Canon 4 related to activity outside of the judge's actual job, effectively related to the judge speaking in public.
So it wouldn't sanction discrimination against same-sex couples because it would operate outside authority.
If anyone has a different link, please share. I wish such articles would link to what they were talking about.
@RD4Anarchy I never said you didn't.
Of course there are winners and losers when powerful officials put fingers on the scales. That's part of why they do it, to benefit some parties, and congrats, you were privileged.
However, you seem to miss the ones who lose out when their abilities to negotiate for better housing for themselves is blocked by the power shift to some statehouse.
Great, you won! But at the expense of others, a downside that you seem to miss.
US Politics
That kind of thinking assumes it's not going to get worse. But it is.
Might as well hold firm? No, the costs involved in holding firm end up making it even harder for those people to get food and healthcare. It can get worse, and it is getting worse due to the holding firm.
I'm glad that you are able to start a monthly donation to your local food bank, but a lot of us are feeling a pinch so we don't have that extra leeway, because of the holding firm.
That's not the choice on the table here, despite a whole lot of politicians lying about it to score political points.
It's pretty disgraceful.
@corbden honestly, more likely that a bunch of amateur-ish reporters are going to get some clicks from putting some slop on the internet.
This kind of headline does not make me think they actually have anything from any experts worth saying, and I wish we wouldn't encourage it.
My scenario is nonsense? No I've seen exactly my scenario play out over and over in real life. It's not unusual at all to see people negotiate higher rent in exchange for some value that they may perceive, and it's their money. The worker does what they want with their earnings.
I think it's funny that you pivot to having to pay more, that word having being pretty opposite of what I laid out with options of not. So much for having to.
And and ancap argument? Not at all! If the people want to give that power up to some some government official, hey it might piss off ancaps, but I respect that decision of the governed.
The problem is people not realizing that they are giving up their power, and in the end a lot of them are worse off because they don't realize the trade they are making.
Rent control regulations are about government officials trying to claim power, selling something for votes. Let's just be honest about that.
@RD4Anarchy Yes, exactly! It really is fucked up!
Maybe you want to go for the cheapest place you can get. Sure. Maybe you want to pay a little bit more for a place that makes you a little bit more happy.
Well, you worked for that money, and it's such a power grab for this official to stand in your way because he wants to be able to approve how workers use their own labor.
Yes, I'd say it is fucked up! But more to the point here, we should recognize it for the power grab that it is when in a time that people are worried about power and throwing around terms like fascist.
The absurd part being, of course, the assertion that you would offer people food they really want and their behavior wouldn't change.
These guys are dumb as rocks with no sense of self-reflection at all.
Again, so many influencers that are influencing conservatives in the US come from backgrounds as sportscasters, and it shows.
#ClayAndBuck, on #NYC owning grocery stores:You know why you never hear the term food desert anymore? Because it was always about people wanting s...
@light came directly from his radio broadcast.
@violetmadder Yes, exactly!
@RD4Anarchy start anywhere!
If my reply is so packed with falsehoods, it shouldn't be hard to start laying them out.
Please! Show me the errors in my ways!
@skoombidoombis I do remember Bush 41. And I don't remember what you're talking about there.
Comes across as gaslighting.
@RD4Anarchy Yeah that sounds about right, you really don't seem to understand the concept that here's a thing and only one person can have it at one time.
That's the underlying fact behind property. And yes, you don't seem to appreciate it.
The point is, if you can count to one, you can understand property. That is, if a person isn't just too busy trying to use government to force to their advantage.
@ForBritain That's pretty foolish.
There's no particular reason to think that advertisements should be representative of the ethnic breakdown of the market.
It's not a conspiracy, it's just reaching different markets.
@Sonikku let the voters vote for who they want.
If voters really want to elect a really old person, well, that's democracy.
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:
