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
I often think about how I do wish we had the word idiot to describe somebody who is uninformed or otherwise simply incapable of making good public policy decisions.
I'd like it to be not even a judgmental word. I think government should be a thing that works, so that most people don't even have to think about it at all. Most people can go about their lives, reading books, seeking fulfillment, and just living without thinking about whatever's happening in capitols. That's the ideal.
So yeah, reclaim idiot! It doesn't mean a dumb person, it just means a person who's not up to date on politics and therefore doesn't really have informed opinions!
Ah well, that's not going to catch on.
Well that's stupid.
The long standing hostility toward the very idea of home rule in DC has a lot to do with the idea of that no local government should control the place that the entire national assembly meets to discuss national issues.
It has nothing to do with race. It has to do with the practicalities of running a national government.
How in the world do you get from the Supreme Court's position that we should all be allowed to speak truth to power to the idea of steamrolling speech?
The Citizens United decision was fundamentally about the exact opposite, saying that we should all be able to speak up, that we should not leave the speech to the elites.
Kennedy was explicit about this in his writing in the decision.
He specifically said that the elites can already speak, but it's the rest of us who get our microphones taken away under the rules that were in question here.
@MaierAmsden @lymphomation @TCatInReality
What specific language abuse did Kennedy commit?
They did not provide any GOP approved platform plank saying they wanted to raise retirement age.
In fact at this point most Republicans seem to explicitly deny wanting to make such a change.
I would say that would be a really good change to make because it would be a step toward fixing the problems with the system, or at least kicking the can down the road a bit, but the GOP doesn't seem to have the guts to actually push for fixing Social Security at this point. Everybody seems to be on the same page that we're all going to ignore the trustees' warnings that the system is heading for collapse.
The math doesn't add up for a sustainable retirement system that was promised to the population. But anybody who proposes to fix it is harangued into silence, so I guess we'll just head off that cliff because that's the politically popular thing to do.
Except that if you actually read the law, that's not what it says, and that's the core of this court case.
The act does not explicitly empower the president to write off student debt.
You can pull up the text of the act to see that for yourself.
Like I said, and I know there's really no point in responding but whatever, the major issue is that all of my friends just did not find it funny.
The show had nothing to offer except humor. It didn't explore the human condition or whatever, it didn't solve puzzles, it just had nothing to offer except humor.
And all of the folks that I watched it with, we watched it, and at the end of the day we all kind of looked at each other like, there wasn't a single funny joke in that. It was just stupid.
And yeah like I said, I know you found it funny and that's great. I'm glad some people did. But just for the record, just to share other experiences, I know a lot of people who watched a few episodes of the show and just did not find it one bit funny.
I wish the show was better and offered humor that more people would laugh at.
Next up you'll learn about algebra.
See this is the problem. You get people saying nobody transacts in Bitcoin, which is really news to all of the people who transact in Bitcoin.
Yes, Bitcoin is used as currency.
So many people making these huge arguments that rely on the counterfactual are just wrong.
About a week ago
@SpinozasHeresy sounds like you are tearing down instead of building up
Well no. The Supreme Court is not talking about fairness. It's talking about the law, what the laws are, what our democratic processes have landed on.
You have the backwards a bit. The major questions doctrine isn't setting aside textualism but rather is a implication of the textualism of the Constitution.
Major questions doctrine is implied by textualism.
The Constitution separates powers, and the major questions doctrine is just about seeing how the powers interplay as per the text of the Constitution.
What examples do you have to support your claims here?
I believe the message is somehow tagged as to whether it's markdown or not.
After all, when the website displays markdown vs text, it somehow knows which way to go.
Apps should have the same opportunity.
And this doesn't require any sort of browser plugin. It's just a webpage.
Yelling "bad faith!" doesn't somehow get you out of the math that these programs are set to spend more than they take in.
If you don't acknowledge that Social Security is on a course to become insolvent under current law then it's hard to even talk about solutions to that problem.
I've really taken to the criticism that describes so much of the content these days as stories written for children by children.
The tone and plotlines of Star Trek and other franchises these days are just vapid, superficial, and immature, worrying about roommate squabbles rather than deep questions about the place of humanity in the scheme of things.
The gaslighting is on the other side, trying to tell us that what we read from the opinion with our own eyes isn't what's in the opinion.
Again, if you want to know what's in the opinion (and I'm not sure you actually do) then we can read the opinion.
All of this theorizing about what might be in the opinion based on indirect observations elsewhere and commentary from outlets around the internet is kind of silly when we can simply read the opinion.
Don't let them gaslight you. Just read the opinion.
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:
