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
For me part of this situation is, as you put it, sleaze surrounding Thomas.
The thing is, I don't know why we should care. The guy wasn't hired to be an angel, and it seems pretty problematic for Congress to be snooping into people's personal lives as it threatens the independent judiciary.
I really don't think Congress should be threatening to start digging into justices' personal lives, particularly politicians who don't like how the Justice might be ruling on cases they have a stake in. It really just sounds corrupt.
Judge the guy based on how he does his job. If Congress has a problem with his rulings, then they should hold him accountable for his rulings.
But to attack the guy based on accusations of "sleaze" in his personal life, that's dangerous territory.
ProPublica is pretty awful, with that long track record of misleading and biased and sensationalized stories; I would hope that Congress would not be sucked down to their level here.
Well can you be specific as to what parts of the argument they got wrong?
I mean, I don't care who it is that is wrong. There are a lot of wrong outfits out there, a lot of special interest groups misleading the public with false information, often enough as it is in their interests to do so.
Fortunately we can see for ourselves when they are wrong. We don't need to appeal to biased authorities when we can just look for ourselves and call out those putting out sensationalist misinformation.
When CPI wants to join that category, well, more power to them.
No I think it's particularly appropriate for the press that is reporting on the government.
SpaceX isn't claiming to be a watchdog on the government. NPR is. The conflict of interest is particularly salient with the press, not so much with companies that are providing services to the government.
But I don't think "some government funding" is particularly more accurate than "government funded"
It's just harder to stick on the disclosure label.
Number one, no, that's not what Citizens United did. In fact, Kennedy's opinion pretty much said the opposite, embracing regulation of donations, rejecting the idea of approving untraceable donations. It's right there in the ruling for us all to read.
But I'm still waiting for something specific. You're still hand waving about vague notions that don't specifically benefit the guy.
Vague accusations about cases going the way the guy would have preferred are not particularly helpful, especially when we have the reasoning in the opinions themselves to stack up against those vague theories.
Again, do you have a terse label that would easily convey "we accept money from the government we report on, just not very much"?
I'm seriously looking for a more effective way that the account could be labeled. I can't think of one.
SpaceX is also government funded. I don't know what that bit of whataboutism really contributes to the debate.
One issue is that SpaceX is not positioning itself as an independent group with reporting that would be holding government accountable. That's the conflict of interest that the press has when it accepts money from the organization it reports on.
Like SpaceX, NPR accepts government funding. Like SpaceX NPR is literally government-funded. There's nothing weird about owning that choice.
No, I think you've been about as clear as possible 🙂
The news organizations accepting state funding don't like to be called state-funded, and that really is the long and short of it.
There's nothing to clarify there. It's just what's happening.
I absolutely would!
Hell just today I was hearing an ad from a liberal arts college in the US that is very proud of not being funded by the US government at all, including indirectly through students taking out subsidized loans.
Funding is funding. NPR accepts funding from the federal government, so it is federally funded, and there's nothing wrong with pointing that out. They are welcome to stop taking that money, in which case they would no longer be federally funded, but apparently it's worth it for them to take it. And there's nothing strange about that.
It's like, NPR often runs little disclaimers that they accept money from other organizations that they report on, so why not embrace this one too?
And again, it's always this weird thing where they keep trying to say it's such an insignificant amount of money... which fine, then if it is so little, maybe they should stop taking it so that they can have total independence from a government that they would be reporting on.
But so long as NPR and PBS accept government funding, they are main government funded. Again, not there's anything wrong with that.
I bet one time the guy had dinner with his friends, and they agreed to take turns buying rounds, and the Thomases left without buying the last round!
I can only clutch these pearls so tightly!
@shansterable@c.im
Thanks for the suggestions, but all three of those clearly don't stand up to the lightest scrutiny here.
Nobody has a right to break the rules they agreed to and impede a democratic assembly, so there is no first amendment issue, and in breaking rules these representatives voluntarily stepped down, which is between them and their constituents. They effectively chose to stop representing their constituents. That is a big deal, IMO, but it's a problem that solves itself.
Meanwhile the legislative record shows that clearly it was not a racial issue, so there is no 14th Amendment issue to apply.
Those three charges are just so obviously baseless that it would be silly for the article even to bring them up.
No what makes it accurate is that it is truthful!
I notice that you did not reply with a specific benefit.
I mean there are so many things wrong with your comment, but I want to keep focus on that one particular request.
You have both complaints factually backwards.
It's funny because even these news organizations are admitting that they are state-funded--and seriously who even denies that?--as they maintain that the state funding they receive is small.
It's one thing to say we should be clear that the funding is a small part of the budget. It's another to deny that they funding they received doesn't happen.
That story has been debunked already as the court pointed out that he is neither getting millions in gifts nor is the party someone who has an active interest in court decisions, which is exactly why this has already been considered and rejected as a concern.
And the Supreme Court does have their own codes, which are the ones that Thomas had third parties consult when they cleared him of these issues.
There's just so much factually wrong with this conspiracy theory, above and beyond even the sensationalized story ProPublica is trying to sell once again.
He said he'd report it now that the guidelines on reporting have been changed.
Seriously, there's no need to reach for the dramatic story. They only serve to obscure what's actually going on.
It's pretty funny that two big dramatic things in #USPolitics right now is Thomas taking vacations with friends (how dare he not disclose that?!) and NPR accepting money from the US government (how dare #Twitter disclose that?!).
Well, funny might not be the right word.
It's sad. But this is Fediverse.
Well personally I do want to know when government is funding a news organization at all, no matter how little the government might be contributing to the bottom line.
It's always a conflict of interests, even if one might say it's only a small amount of money.
And hell, if it is so little money, I'd say #NPR and #PBS should simply stop taking it. If the funding is so insignificant, why open themselves up to that conflict of interest at all?
So yeah, this label is accurate, and if you have a more communicative label I'm interested since I haven't really been able to think of one.
A CARPORT?! Yeah, you've got him now!
Seriously, it's amazing how far Propublica is trying to stretch this story.
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:
