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 think this is one of those cases where the healthiest path forward isn't to deny the reaction or backlash, but rather to say yes, it is reaction and backlash, it is destructive reaction and backlash, and to criticize it.
Otherwise it can get sidetracked into an argument over what happened instead of focusing on the antisocial aspect of what did happen.
I think they have generally been calling on Trump to drop out for a good while now, more or less flat out saying he should not be president again.
However, keep in mind that the Republicans are benefiting from this drama as talking about it appeals to their base.
The candidates benefit from seeing Trump stay in and keep this stuff alive as a talkingpoint.
Often news outlets and commentators seem to try to oversimplify their stories into black and white narratives with clear teams, but when you actually watch the opinions come out, there will often enough be more than two groupings AND different justices will show up on different sides throughout the term.
Just for one example, the recent EPA case was portrayed by maybe as those dastardly right-wing justices acting, but the actual case had unanimous agreement among all justices that the EPA didn't have the power it was claiming.
It's just an example of how so often the stories we receive go really off the rails to invent dramatic, personal framing that doesn't really match the reality.
I'm quoting directly from the opinion here. There is no room for disagreement about the words on the page.
For example, the members associated with the left-wing of the Court agreed that the EPA was acting in violation of the CWA.
"ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, GORSUCH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. KAGAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ., joined."
Yep.
An awful lot of people don't follow things like #SCOTUS opinions closely enough to know they're being sold a narrative that just doesn't match the record.
The liberal vs conservative description of the Supreme Court makes for dramatic headlines, but the decision record of the Court doesn't really match that naive narrative.
Earlier: @Brian_Riedl: "The 'conservative Supreme Court justices are partisan ideologues voting in lockstep' crowd sure is quiet today." #SCOTUS ...
Yep, it's about democracy. Your fellow voters can still vote to elect the guy.
The way to prevent anyone from being voted in to office is to engage with other voters to discuss and change their minds.
We can't (and shouldn't) try to use the legal system to undermine democracy out of fear of how other voters might choose to use their votes.
@swanksalot If you read the opinion, the Court didn't gut the Clean Water Act, and it wasn't just the right wing that came to its conclusion.
Instead, the Court *reinforced* the CWA, insisting that it be followed as passed, and even liberals on the Court pointed out that the EPA was claiming power that it didn't have.
It was also a case about private ownership, not about business.
There's so much wrong with that narrative, but you can read the opinion for yourself so you don't have to trust such outlets.
Really? You think 1930s Germany ignored the political figures rising? I'd say the exact opposite happened, as figures gained more and more attention.
I think you have your history backwards.
That a president may choose to allow his subordinates to operate without close oversight is itself a reflection of the president's authority over his branch.
And it does become problematic: we trust presidents to restrain this powerful law enforcement organization. Presidents traditionally letting them operate as they wish is giving them quite a lot of flexibility to exercise that power against the public.
But we need to be absolutely clear on this: The president is legally responsible for his Department of Justice, and should the DoJ misbehave the president must stand accountable and even impeachable over it.
It is an error for us to buy the idea that law enforcement can do what it wants without accountability for the president that it reports ti.
Part of the issue is that an awful lot of people acted like they thought they owned Twitter, and when Twitter changed out from under them they flocked over here, decided they owned this platform, and started making demands that everyone behave the way they wanted them to.
When you say the welcoming culture needs some work, that group of people is happy to be unwelcoming to those they don't want on "their" platform. If you don't share their vision for the platform, they don't want you here anyway.
My point in saying this is sort of understanding what we're working with.
You can admonish those people for being unwelcoming, but they'll just say, "Good."
There may be little that can be done to change Trump fans' minds, but there are ways to stop throwing them meat and encouraging them.
Ignore Trump and he and his followers will wander off.
As the Internet adage goes, don't feed the trolls.
In the US system of government, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President," and since indictments are executive branch actions, they DO come from Joe Biden.
The Department of Justice is the agency that the president acts through for this kind of thing.
The DoJ is not a fourth branch of the US government. It is part of the president's executive branch, part of the president's administration.
Oh no, you are welcome to say whatever you want on social media. I'd never tell anybody what they should or shouldn't post.
But what you are posting here just comes across as really at odds with what the court actually released. It seems like you are being misled by whoever you are listening to.
But yeah, just yelling at clouds. It's social media, it doesn't do any actual good. I don't expect anybody to actually grow or examine their beliefs in this world.
It would be nice to be surprised, though.
Thomas didn't issue a scathing dissent against voting rights. It sounds like you didn't read what he wrote if that's what you think.
He wrote a scathing dissent against what he presents as legally and logically flawed arguments laid out in the majority opinion.
Thomas isn't against voting rights here. In fact, his dissent holds the Court to the VRA. He is against the position of the majority that runs *counter* to the Voting Rights Act.
Well, since Supreme Court opinions are publicly available, you can read Thomas's reasoning for yourself, and you don't have to be puzzled any longer.
Here's the link to his conclusion, right from his own pen:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
Well, FWIW, I'd say mainstream conservative talk never had much of an IF phase. They always assumed he would be.
I think you might be missing that just because they are part of fediverse doesn't mean they can't inject ads into the ActivityPub stream or apply whatever algorithms they see fit.
Their being part of fediverse means they can broadcast their ads more widely, which would help their business model.
Sure, a lot of people might block them, but every user who doesn't block them is an additional bit of audience they can charge for serving ads to.
Thanks for linking directly to a copy of the opinion!
Far too few people do that, leading us to reading likely biased versions of what happened.
Also, good question as to how this would apply to hacking.
But the rules are that no matter who is Speaker of the House, the legislative branch doesn't have the power to override constitutional amendments.
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:
