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
@BrideOfLinux Well it's misinformative.
The episode tells a story, but unfortunately a lot of it is just not factually true, compared to the legal and historical records that we have.
It's basically propaganda. Except I think the host actually believes it, unfortunately.
@stevevladeck.bsky.social Well right, that's how the law works, that's how it was written.
The law was written so that these people would be legally protected until they weren't, and the Supreme Court is simply recognizing what the law says, for better or worse.
@upright What are you talking about?
@OccuWorld It's not that they granted Trump's push to revoke temporary legal protections, it's that they called out the lower courts on making mistakes with their own rulings.
That's a huge difference, and is vital to understanding how the US system works.
@GetMisch What? No. That's not how this works, that's not what's happening, this is just conspiratorial reporting.
No, the government isn't even banning things. And so the case isn't about banning things, and if it was, which it wasn't, it could be changed the same way that it would be ruled on.
So this is just a load of nonsense.
The important part here is, you heard Trump say the Federalist society created a system for vetting?
They didn't create that system. Trump is just too damn ignorant to know the difference, and the people around him are taking advantage of that ignorance.
This really reflects on Trump more than anyone else that he doesn't know how any of this stuff works.
@SenatorMoobs It's not bizarre at all if you understand the law and follow courts' history.
It's pretty expected.
I hear people getting caught off guard by this sort of thing, and it really comes down to their not being familiar with these issues.
Given the history and record, the ongoing trade deals will be minor changes trotted out as overstated victories.
And so no, the ruling won't really affect them; they wouldn't have been much to impact in the first place.
No, they don't fear him at all. They're in charge, knowing that he'll do whatever they feed him.
That's why they had their dustup on Signal. They were arguing about who gets to control him that day.
What? This is purely an executive branch matter, has nothing to do with the judicial branch.
Keep in mind that those surrounding #Trump are puppeting him for their own personal, and diverse, goals.
You could see that directly in the Signal leaks.
And so for many of them the #tariffs aren't the end goal. Some of them are using cases like this and the birthright citizenship case as vehicles to nudge US law in the longrun, and not necessarily in bad ways.
This case stands to reinforce the bounds of the nondeligation doctrine, for example, throwing Trump under the bus to guard against overreach by future, actually competent presidents.
... others just want to watch the world burn.
I'm positive Trump did not know about the Court of International Trade.
Some around him may have, but you can see that they generally shield him from such realities.
It's always worth reading for yourself rulings like those against Trump's tariffs, as you just know the reporting on it will be questionable, from both sides.
One really funny thing is that Trump has once again shot himself in the foot with all his nonsense of "they've been screwing us for years!" which means that isn't an emergency and thus doesn't justify emergency imposition of tariffs.
Just because somebody is an awful human and a felon doesn't mean they're a traitor though.
You're mixing up issues here, and it's really important to be clear about it because it devalues the idea of actual treacherous behavior
If you don't think people feuded then you weren't paying attention.
Yeah, there's been a lot of feuding over the last years or decades. There's no reason to hide the head in the sand about that. We should call out the folks that set things up for this all too foreseeable situation.
Heck, I personally spent years saying if we don't change course this is going to happen. So we didn't change course. And this happened.
Yes, they feuded. We should hold them accountable for contributing to this mess.
@derickr The thing that people really need to realize is that this isn't just Trump, this is a general mood in the country that he is representing.
If we just focus on Trump we end up ignoring the much more important issue that a lot of people in the country want it this way.
@neuSoM The stories about the US attacking science have been greatly overstated.
In fact the change in administration has really moved away from some micromanagement that was holding science back before, allowing science to proceed!
It just doesn't make sensational headlines to say things are going better now.
@ZzyzxProton it sounds like you are confusing opinion with fact here.
They are very different.
If you think I'm factually wrong that's fine. That would be a fact, as a matter of fact. Not opinion though.
Separating a fact from opinion is kind of a big deal.
@ZzyzxProton But it's not opinion. It's a matter of fact.
And so at this point we're not talking about a president firing a member sully for political reasons. Factually, that line doesn't apply.
And that's key to this whole situation.
Humphrey's is wrong because it violates the separation of power in the constitutional order, but even if it was right, factually that excerpt does not apply here.
@ZzyzxProton No this is false.
That's not how Humphrey's Executor ruled or how it applies to this current situation, whether it was a a solid ruling or not, which itself has been extremely questionable among experts for decades now.
So no, it's not that the court will be remembered for supporting a dictator. Hopefully it's that this moment will be remembered for the amount of misinformation and flat out propaganda that has been fed through social media like this.
No, that's not what's going on, and if you actually read rulings directly from the court, listen to the arguments directly, and keep up with decades of experts talking about these topics, you wouldn't fall for this kind of nonsensical posturing.
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
