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
Firstly, you're still arguing against strawmen, debating against claims that aren't on the table.
But putting that aside, here's a higher level question: you seem to be saying that there's no point discussing things with those who don't already agree with the position, at which point I'd ask, What's the point?
If you've given up on bringing others over to your perspective, then what's the point of even exploring the perspective?
It strikes me as just spinning wheels at that point, accepting the lines as they're drawn with no hope of moving anyone.
volkris
boosted
@alexwild
More people need to know about Jury Nullification. The judges and lawyers are not allowed to tell you about it, but it's every juror's right to ignore a law that in itself is unjust. It's the last chance for the voice of democracy to be heard in our system.
#USPolitics #Homeless
It really comes down to something like artist's intent.
It comes down to what the poster intends their post to be like.
I mean, sometimes users want things because they simply provide better experiences?
In my experience the chronological feed hides good stuff int he stream of a ton of uninteresting and repetitive stuff, so a better algorithm would help show me better stuff than the chronological feeds does.
Out of curiosity, when you say all over the news media, what outlets do you have in mind?
The reason I ask is because I hear claims that not only "is nobody talking about" something or other, but that someone actually went to see and noted the absence of talk.
But never overlook the core factor that voters elect, and reelect, these people.
No matter WHY our representatives do what they do, apparently we voters are generally OK with it since we keep sending the same people back to Congress.
@GrrlScientist
As far as I can tell, that's the expected behavior of the Mastodon UI, and we're supposed to open the original post if we want to see those conversations.
I believe the idea is to filter out all of the other comments by default to focus on our own exchanges.
This isn't about arguing against fascists, though. It's more about how the argument might look to third parties.
Sure, you can't win an argument against an irrational person, but when I see someone making an argument that seems detached from reporting and from the stances being taken by the other side, that argument isn't convincing to anyone else.
If the point is the preach to the choir, fine. But if the point is to raise awareness or convince others of something, then that weakness in the argument works against the goal.
The thing is, HOW would it end up at the Supreme Court?
There would have to be some sort of action against the court for the court to rule on, but there is really no action that can be taken against the court, and so there would be nothing to rule on, which in the end really proves Alito correct.
Constitutionally Congress has no right of action against the court so there is no action that can be taken in the first place, just as the separation of powers dictates.
@hulavikih To be clear about what's happening here, It's pointed out that senators have no legal right to interfere with judicial independence, and a senator is claiming that no, the senator really really does have the power to impose on the judiciary.
We really need to be clear about the self-serving interests involved in legislators declaring that they really can violate judicial independence and impose their will on a branch of government that is supposed to be in a position to scrutinize their activities.
We should not easily accept this notion of politicians being able to breach judicial Independence.
To be frank I really don't care what any fuckers want.
If an argument is faulty then let's point out why it's faulty, let's show that it is just plain in error, and let's show that it is wrong regardless of who is talking and what their motivations may be.
It doesn't matter what anybody wants. Wrong is wrong, regardless of want, and that is the basis on which to show that somebody is wrong.
Or else is simply not going to be a universally compelling case being made. It's just going to be tribalism at that point. Choir preaching.
Well I would say that the discussion you are setting off on seems pretty disconnected from the larger trends in American culture since it doesn't seem to be referencing things that are going on in current events.
And so like I said, pointing to specific examples of the argument that you are criticizing would go a long way to clarify what you are trying to say.
@B2Spirit_TT@mastodon.social
Huh. Frankly, you seem a little obsessed with Trump there
What in the world does the Constitution have to do with it?
@LALegault @woo asked where to serve the court order and I simply said it depends on the order.
Well, just to illustrate that it seems more complicated that you are giving credit for, I AM one of those bleeding heart liberals, and I'm constantly sad that progressives have seemed to break from that, to go in a direction that strikes me as far more related to the right than my own stance.
So I guess great? Go be loud? Prove whatever you need to prove? But that's part of what to me separates progressives from my identification as a liberal, part of why I don't find myself to be an ally with the progressive cause.
I'm busy looking for solutions due to my bleeding heart. Y'all do y'all, but this is why there seems to be a serious rift between liberals and progressives.
I think it's more complicated than you are realizing.
For example, I don't think liberal is a dirty word and I don't really give a shit what Rush Limbaugh said, but I differ from progressive people because I disagree with them and how authoritarian they tend to be.
Progressive isn't the new word for liberal. Progressive is different, in my estimation, and as a strong liberal I sure wish progressive people WERE liberal.
I feel like the progressive movement left liberals like me behind.
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:
