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
Well I can see your cause for concern and why you decided to walk that back.
FWIW, to me personally, I think that terminology probably captured what you were trying to say pretty well, so maybe I would have clarified with "political parasite"? But yeah, not trying to argue, I see where you're coming from there.
Whenever I see a story like this I always wish it was reframed more literally: it's not so much that FDA is *allowing* imports of the essential drug as it is the FDA putting a pause on prosecution of anybody doing the importing.
In other words, those drugs would already be heading into the country had the FDA not been threatening prosecution previously.
Yeah, we've probably should have the FDA policing and blocking the sale of some drugs, but being clear about how that works helps emphasize that it is a balance that we need to consider.
But this is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact.
The guy literally did not say what he's being haranged for saying. I would share your opinion that supporting white nationalists would be a bad thing, so we actually agree on our opinions. It's just that, factually, he didn't.
But yeah, I'm sure that's as far as the matter goes here.
Well I end up wondering what specifically was wrong with your post.
Just because something is reminiscent of Twitter doesn't mean it's necessarily bad. And I would worry that people are getting criticized not on their own terms but because of association with the other site.
Well it's probably also the reason why many people say yes, but I find the content here to be so one-sided, so lacking in different opinions, pretty much an echo chamber.
And that disappoints and frustrates me.
I imagine a lot of people feel that their mental health has improved through the lack of challenges to their perspectives, but I don't think it's healthy overall.
Yes but when you pull up the interview you can see that these outlets, including Rolling Stone, seem perfectly happy to promote the false narrative because it's dramatic and gets them more clicks.
Rolling Stone is not a particularly trustworthy news source. This is an example of why.
That's not what he said though.
He rejected the premise that they were white nationalists in the first place, saying that they were mislabeled.
He absolutely didn't defend white nationalists. He wasn't talking about white nationalists at all, and that was his point.
Yes, but they cost a good five bucks more to produce :-)
Ha, FWIW, personally I would go the other way with that.
If you told me I needed to choose a server or instance, fine, but choosing a community seems like a much bigger deal, much more daunting.
Just to say, some people are going to feel more scared away by that terminology, even if some people like it better.
I mean, what subterfuge exactly?
Their opinions are publicly accessible to us all, so they aren't exactly being sneaky. Heck, if they were trying to be sneaky then the opinions would have no influence at all. It is only through their public actions that they have any impact on the world at all.
@marianisoehartono@ohai.social
Well the thing about #MMT is that in theory it absolutely would work. The US could spend money that way and avoid inflation by removing it from the system through the right levels of taxation. That math works out.
The problem is that in practice it is a non-starter. We can see flat out today that the people we elect aren't willing to set appropriate levels of taxation to cover normal government expenditures, much less the level needed to centrally manage the currency.
It's a fine idea on paper, with no possibility of being implemented in the real world.
Nope. SCOTUS applies standard rules of federal courts, as it did here. And it explained that at length in the ruling, as did the lower courts that also explained at length how this legal process works.
But they have already tightened ethics rules. That's a major part of this story.
Thomas did not report those things because the previous rules didn't require such reporting. The rules have since changed, and now they do.
It's unfortunate that so many media outlets are missing that key part of this story.
If correct legal decisions are right-wing political ends, well that mainly says something about the left
-wing being out to lunch.
Respect for the democratic process and application of the democratically passed statutes should not be a left right issue.
There are structural changes required: we really need to stop reelecting the jerks who decline to fix our laws. But we do, so we get the laws that we ask for.
Alternet seems to be misrepresenting how the US court system works with this article.
Firstly, remember that it wasn't just a Supreme Court ruling. Court after court considered this case and they all considered it to be legit. This wasn't something the SCOTUS just made up.
But to explain it, the petitioner asked for a ruling about a law that was going to be applied at some point. It doesn't matter that the law had not yet been applied, or that nobody had made the request, as per the rules about the court system, it is sufficient that the application of law was going to happen at some point.
So these articles think they have uncovered something when really, yeah, that's just how the federal courts work. There's no gotcha here.
Well what would you do about unscheduled vacancies?
If there were two unexpected vacancies during a president's term, would that be an addition to the two that were scheduled, therefore giving that president room to appoint four of the nine?
In short, my impression is that a major difference is how ActivityPub focuses on instances while Bluesky focuses on users.
It's hard to think about them interoperating when they have such different philosophies.
Constitutional amendments are absolutely part of the system of US law. They are fundamental to US law. And the legal process is the main way of creating or reforming them.
SCOTUS is not invalidating laws. That's not how the US legal system works. It does not have the authority to invalidate a law. Instead, the courts can point out when some action runs afoul of law, that is the major job of a court under the US system.
The standing of 303 Creative was spelled out in the ruling. It does no good to simply deny what we can read with our own eyes.
Folks saying government debt is not like a family's debt because governments can print money get that exactly backwards.
Yes, your family can print your own money. Maybe it won't be accepted because it's not considered particularly valuable. **Same as government printed money** if the government prints too much of it.
The lesson is the same in both cases: the value of money can vary.
303 Creative was based on the 1st Amendment, and Groff was based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
If we want to reform these laws then we need to elect better lawmakers.
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:
