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
The problem is that the people we elected to Congress put in place loan repayment, so it's really not up to either the Supreme Court or the president to make that decision.
If we want student loans to be forgiven then we need to talk to our representatives or even elect different ones.
As it stands now, the people have spoken through our representatives and the other two branches of the federal government should not be overriding that democratic process.
Ironically, that sort of approach flat out gives them the ability to control who you choose.
If you choose the guy based on who they attack, then they can tell you who to vote for by attacking who they want.
Ha! I think he has it backwards.
As I recall, one of the arguments the state was making was that it should not consider race, while the courts said the opposite, that race MUST be part of the process.
The court rejected the idea that voting practices should not discriminate on account of race, saying that the law requires discrimination to make up for past injustices.
Ha, FWIW, I go the other way.
I don't think I say anything interesting, but I want to see what interesting people say.
I really wouldn't give two wits as to whether Linus whatever see anything I wrote, but I am quite interested in seeing what he puts up.
I'm eternally critical of #ActivityPub being centralized around instances instead of decentralized down to focus on users.
It didn't have to be this way, but this was the choice made by the developers.
And it might be one of the major ways that #Bluesky chooses a better path.
You laid out the process that led to this timeline.
So that's exactly what I was interested in pointing out.
I said this is how the legal system works in the US, and you filled in some details about how it worked in this particular case, so, ::high five::
USPol; SCOTUS Today
I don't think it was an unexpected result, though. It seems pretty in keeping with both the history and practice of the #SCOTUS.
This is the sort of thing where I really feel like people who found this surprising need to reevaluate who they listen to for news, since a lot of people were caught offguard based on being mislead about how the Court actually operates.
To put it in scientific terms, many news outlets sell dramatic theories that aren't quite right, and these moments are the experiments that show those theories to be wrong.
This is why it's such a good idea for people to include hashtags like USPolitics to allow people to filter out that content that they really don't want to see.
Again, the two aren't mutually exclusive.
Just because you're putting a finger on the scale to ensure equity doesn't mean you're not putting a finger on the scale OR that putting a finger on the scale is wrong.
We should own it: We do put this finger on the scale because it is the right thing to do, and so we should keep on putting this finger on the scale so long as it's needed.
Is it is preferencing Black voters, because preferencing Black voters is the right way to address larger issues with society.
To deny what we're doing, instead of proudly owning and promoting it, is to leave the door open to ending the needed practice, since apparently it wasn't needed in the first place under that argument.
Exactly.
That overlooks the simpler explanation, that they simply applied the law as it is, as they explained at length.
There's no reason to grasp for the explanation that legitimizes bullying.
You have it backwards: those members were refusing to go down a fascist route to impose their personal opinions on others.
It's really odd when folks describe it as fascist when power is NOT asserted, when authoritarian is avoided.
It undermines the term, equating it to simply people who share different opinions than my own.
I wasn't talking about the juxtaposition.
For example, regardless of anything else, it's simply not relevant that Roberts took that position in the past while working in a different role. The paper brings that up to spin a misleading tale that the guy has changed his position.
It is misleading in its own, standalone right.
If you're reading an insult into what I said, then I'm happy to clarify that you're misreading, and there was certainly no insult intended.
I think the Supreme Court opinion from a few years ago did a great job illustrating the ways in which gerrymandering is used for the best, as the Court declined to pick sides in the complicated back and forth.
But it IS preferencing Black voters over other voters, even if that's the thing that should be done.
Instead of denying that they'd be receiving these benefits, why not pivot and instead emphasize that they are entitled to the benefit?
Why not first accept the reality, but also promote the idea that it's a good thing? That makes for a more durable solution than denying that it's happening at all.
After all, if you deny that something is happening, that makes it easier to reverse later on, because after all, it's supposedly not happening.
What do you mean, specifically?
Well, here's the ruling explaining it.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
Yes, that's how the US legal system works.
Each stage in a legal dispute has its own rules specifying benefit of the doubt as the arguing parties prepare their best arguments and present them to judges.
These practices have emerged from centuries of application, as societies around the world have figured out the best ways to conduct trials.
I mean, here's the ruling so you can read the reasoning for yourself, so you don't have to delve into such conspiracy theories.
This ruling was completely in keeping with the Court's history. There was nothing odd here. They applied the law in a reasonable way.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
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:
