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
@SrRochardBunson @morganalafee @ArenaCops @kaydenpat
Dobbs recognized legal arguments that have had bipartisan buy-in for generations.
If you insist on this conspiracy, then my, it's a massive one. Who has the money to pay off those hundreds if not thousands of apparently corrupt jurists from across a broad swath of American legal thought?
Or... maybe the argument was simply the correct and reasonable conclusion?
Occam's Razor applies.
It's almost like he is governing a state with very diverse views and populations instead of being a conservative ideologue.
It's almost like seeking compromise and consensus instead of just fighting losing battles is the way to win.
@SrRochardBunson @morganalafee @ArenaCops @kaydenpat
That's a nice conspiracy theory you've got there.
It really doesn't square with what the Supreme Court actually rules, but don't let that get in the way of a good story.
Well no. A large part of the complaint here is that the president's actions violate exactly the plain meaning of the statute. And that seems right to me as I read the statute and compare it against what the president did.
I'm actually a huge fan of applying the plain meaning of statutes and demanding that Congress fix them when their intent was different.
In this case, as I watch that specific point argued, the president doesn't seem to be in the right.
Well that's a silly thing to say.
Conservatives thinking critically of critical race theory is an indication of their critical thinking, not a sign of being against critical thinking.
This image is flat out false. Their tax rate is much higher.
The question before the Supreme Court is not whether the student loan bailout is fair or not. The question is whether a president can act unilaterally against the laws passed by our democratic system.
I mean, it was the GOP that expanded the standard deduction so that the poor will get a tax break...
Yeah that's right. I'm a troll because I actually quote the Supreme Court when talking about what the Supreme Court may have said.
Be warned.
Facts, man, they troll you, they are inconvenient, sometimes they don't say what sensationalized media outfits try to sell, and that's annoying.
The ruling says the exact opposite, it says that because the wealthy elite have a fire hose of cash, the rest of us need a way to compete with that, so the ruling is 100% about addressing that issue.
Kennedy is explicit about this in the ruling.
In the ruling he points out that because of that fire hose the rest of us need more ability to compete, so because of that fire hose the government cannot stop us from joining forces and trying to compete against it.
The entire point of the CU decision is to counter the fire hose.
@lymphomation @TCatInReality @MaierAmsden
What in the world does Fox have to do with us reading the opinion directly from the Supreme Court's website?
What are you on about?
@MaierAmsden @lymphomation @TCatInReality
That's the opposite of what he wrote in the opinion, as he said the rest of us need to be able to fight against the wealthy.
@TheOldGuy no is emphatically opposite!
wtf are you talking about?
Just sharing memes doesn't convince anybody of anything
What do you think the party is, then?
I don't think I'm confusing the voters with the party. I think I am emphatically embracing the difference to say that the party has not had the plank that you think.
That's the one.
She makes very very good content that I really appreciate.
What are you talking about? Afraid to reject him? No they flat out voted against his people. They weren't afraid they said no, loudly as can be.
Oh what's her name, the armor lady. She had really good content and then curiosityStream decided to drop her.
So I was out.
What are you talking about? The GOP rejected him in the elections which is part of why his candidates lost so many.
Me, I canceled my #curiositystream subscription when they showed themselves to be so intolerant.
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:
