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
@bespacific What are you on about?
On a daily basis Trump is complaining that the other branches of government aren't obeying what he wants them to do. He wants to rule them, but he complains constantly that they don't cooperate with him.
No, the three branches of government are not ruled by one man. That's not how the US government works.
Hand-picked court? What in the world? No that's not reality.
No, the US system does not give presidents the ability to hand pick the court. Intentionally, presidents have to live with the court as it is, as it is a separate branch of government, and membership must be confirmed by the people we elect to the Senate.
This court has ruled against Trump plenty. If it was hand-picked surely they wouldn't be ruling against him so much.
So no, it sounds like you're promoting a conspiracy theory that just doesn't jive with the way the US government is set up.
@dgregor79 No, that's the opposite of what the Supreme Court said in their opinion. They actively went out of their way to be clear that that is not what they were saying.
@Nonilex That's the exact opposite of what the court said in their opinion.
@Nerde What do you think it means?
We elected a bunch of idiots to the House, the so it's his job to to give voice to the idiots that we elected.
He'll express whatever our elected representatives need him to express.
@DeniseG Right, because that's how US election systems work.
They weren't fake electors. They were proposed electors that Congress was to judge through the EC system.
That's just how this was always supposed to go.
He's the Speaker of the House so his official job is to represent and cooperate with members of the House.
We elected a bunch of really dumb people to the House
He pretty much has no choice but to say dumb things because he represents dumb people that we elected.
@grrlscientist don't overlook that it's also for fun.
People enjoy playing with guns, same as they enjoy anything else.
It's important to recognize this motivation because it has to be considered when talking about seeking consensus for change.
@grrlscientist the problem is that we elected congresspeople who are generally not interested in pulling the 25th Amendment trigger at this point.
We should stop reelecting such people, and then maybe we'd get better government.
@phaedral no, SCOTUS didn't preempt anything here. That's not how the US legal system works.
It's funny how in your post you recognize that the Court is perfectly willing to rule against Trump while still saying they give him carte blanc [sic].
No, sometimes Trump is right on the law, often he's wrong, and the Court explains the differneces.
@GottaLaff It's funny because Trump personally came out celebrating being completely vindicated, and his supporters said the same thing, getting the court ruling completely backwards.
So I guess he has at least some adults working for him who actually read the court case and realized he lost.
I don't think Trump and his people realize they lost.
@ppatel The new executive order is just posturing like everything else this President does
@continuation you say that, but that's not what I'm hearing from queer activists.
@EveHasWords you have no right to privacy in public. It's mainly a question of whether the people you elect to government fund these programs.
@Peter_Link meh That's sensationalism. Executive orders proposing to violate law are simply invalid.
@libramoon the Texas legislature is not the federal Congress. So no.
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
