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
SCOTUS overturns ban on abortion drug
Not quite.
The Court stayed an order that would have had the the drug available through regulations up through 2016, putting that order on hold while the rest of the case goes through the courts.
It didn't overturn a ban (that was already done), and nationwide access was also not in question at this stage.
Bitter? No. More like disappointed.
He calls out the court for playing games and accepting false premises instead of simply applying the law and pursuing a consistent legal environment.
Just get it directly from the Court. No need to go through NYTimes.
I think this is one of those cases where people who were surprised might reconsider their ideas about the Court, that left them missing the prediction.
I thought it was a pretty predictable outcome, despite what a lot of speakers were saying.
No, the court case has not reached the merits stage, so this doesn't settle the original lawsuit.
What specifically do you disagree with from Alito's dissent?
That kind of dovetails with my point.
If those speakers aren't even constrained to honesty, and they can say whatever they want, then their emphasis of the importance of child exploitation is even more likely reflective of their beliefs.
I mean, they absolutely get so much wrong. However, they're expressing strong opposition to child exploitation even if that exploitation only exists in their fever dreams.
Just to highlight another case of how we live in completely different worlds when we don't stop to figure out matters of basic fact, compare this week's breathless reporting on mifepristone against the Supreme Court's release:
"As narrowed by the Court of Appeals, the stay that would apply if we failed to broaden it would not remove mifepristone from the market. It would simply restore the circumstances that existed (and that the Government defended) from 2000 to 2016 under three Presidential administrations."
Press outlet after outlet said the opposite. So, would have been nice if we could all get on the same page about this kind of thing.
Right, but US law calls for specific procedures through which such data is to be considered, and it's up to the FDA to consider that data.
Maybe we should change the laws. I'd say the Executive Branch should have acted on that data already so we wouldn't be in this mess at all.
But judges aren't in a position to ignore laws and the FDA's own records due to the results of independent investigations.
This case is about whether legal procedures were followed. That's what judges are looking to rule on.
Yep, but we're not at the merits phase of this court proceeding.
And again, the administration could fix all of this since the mess was caused by executive branch processes.
So, instead we're going to wind through the court proceedings, taking time and accepting the uncertainty.
The US Treasury, which writes checks and spends money on behalf of the United States, is an Executive Branch department.
It is not a part of the Legislative branch, which wouldn't make sense anyway.
It's true that "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law" but power of the purse only extends to giving the president the permission to spend.
If you want more evidence of how this works, note that the Treasury NEVER spends exactly what lawmakers legislate. And that's because Congress does not, and cannot, spend.
You're missing the different functions of the separate branches of government.
No, just as there are rules about taking turns to speak, there are also guidelines on decorum when speaking.
Whether you or I might approve or not, legislative bodies tend to have rules about speakers attacking each other and things like that.
This legislator was found to have broken those rules of decorum, that everyone agreed to.
That's exactly the issue: this case is about the FDA's own questions about whether the drug passed its tests.
To put it another way, the judge isn't judging the drug. Rather, the judge is looking at FDA's own records saying the drug didn't pass tests, but they approved it anyway.
That's simplifying it a little bit, but I'm just trying to emphasize that this case is all about the FDA's own judgement of the drug, based on the FDA's own records.
Go directly to the ruling and you'll see that plenty of press outfits are misreporting what's actually going on.
Here's a link to it:
@gbhnews @sarahutch @damemagazine @TPR @azpm @thexylom @TheConversationUS @wausaupilot @STAT
That's a misleading description of what's happening in Montana.
According to PBS, the rep isn't being allowed to speak after breaking rules of the chamber. That's just how legislative bodies work: they have rules to be obeyed and accountability for people who break the rules they agreed to.
@alastor8472@mastodon.online
I don't discount the possibility that ActivityPub isn't so much in a state of slow development as it's in a state of having hit a dead end :)
But that's a bit snarky.
The Court isn't making decisions about science, though.
This whole mess is about an executive branch agency not following the law, not about science.
The question before the court is about law, as that's what the Court has the expertise to handle.
@alastor8472@mastodon.online
Yes! I beat the drum that #Fediverse is not so much decentralized as it's centralized around instances.
It's federated, not decentralized.
From my understanding of #Bluesky it actually is more decentralized, giving power to users instead of instances.
I'm always critical of the engineering decisions #ActivityPub made, pretty much because it's not what Bluesky seems to have settled on.
In short, and this is uncertain until we learn more about it, Bluesky might be what Fediverse should have been, IMO.
Seems to me "racist" is the new way to refer to *everything*.
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:
