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 am willing to believe that Biden sharked his responsibilities like that, and I would consider that to be an impeachable dereliction of duty.
The DOJ operates subordinate to the president, the head of that branch of government. Should a president so proudly declare that he won't exercise oversight of the most powerful law enforcement agency in the country, that's a pretty big deal!
And it's a shame that we would tolerate it as it is a very dangerous precedent to be setting.
@nus@mstdn.social
Well that's one part I think I can clarify without repeating: upset? No I'm not upset. I just got a kick out of the absurdity of your statement. It made me laugh!
This whole story is not one with enough substance to get anybody upset over, IMO.
It's like this person is so obsessed with a particular bit of drama that they are willing to overlook how governance in the US actually works, and that's a real shame.
I mean the system specifically prevents such unelected people from having such major roles in governing, handing them little more than appellate jurisdiction opinions.
The actual governing mainly takes place in the other branches of the federal government, and for a really good reason!
@nus@mstdn.social
You are incorrect, and I just didn't want to repeat myself above.
You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote above, but again I just feel like I would be repeating myself should I restate it, so that doesn't look productive.
Oh no it's quite the opposite: It is in support of liberal democracy that we need to highlight the political branch, the representative branch, and focus on electing better congresspeople instead of being distracted with all this mess.
After all, if we don't want a particular justice on the court anymore the process for making that happen runs right through the people we elect to Congress.
They are free to impeach and remove any justice anytime their political responsibility to voters arrives at that compulsion.
It is BECAUSE liberal democracy is so important that we need to focus much more solidly on the branch that is there to engage liberal democracy.
@nus@mstdn.social
Oh, no, not at all! I didn't find your claim the least bit interesting. It comes across as anecdotal projection relying on subjective and normative comparisons with little actual insight.
It's both.
volkris
boosted
DNA Lounge Update, Wherein today is Zero Cool Day
https://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/log/2023/08/10.html
@nus@mstdn.social
I didn't say anything about your complaints about the scaling.
But it jumped out at me that you were making this particular complaint, about the graph about identity focusing on identity.
I would have other questions about this research, about its methodology, that go far beyond how they scaled their graph, but then, I don't actually think this claim is particularly substantial enough to track it down.
I'd say that's a pretty odd take on the cause of the US Civil War, not to mention the political history between declarations from state houses and the first shots fired.
@nus@mstdn.social
In a graph about how people identify, I think you're reaching a bit when complaining that it presented how people identify.
If the chart is about identification, then having ideals is a different matter, so you're complaining that the chart measured what it said instead of what, I suppose, you would have preferred to study.
Yeah, it's such a shame that so many rather loud voices refuse to see that value to the platform
Well, a vocal minority, hopefully.
Well that gets a bit circular: Americans who aren't informed about the protections will consider inadequate the protections that they're not informed of?
Anyway, really the general public has so little understanding of basic civics, things like the role of the Court in the US judicial system, that such polling isn't all that meaningful, ESPECIALLY considering that the Court was specifically set up to be independent of such political questions.
But there is evidence of self-policing.
The justices engage with each other to discuss these controversies, and it's even reported that the internal processes were followed even in these specific charges being circulated lately.
Well right but this sounds like it is talking about information that is being handed over voluntarily.
If it's not served it's not served.
It's so funny how people are casting opposition to a prosecutor as fascism.
Like yeah, it's fascism to NOT back the police and their activities against the public?
It's fascist to be critical of the police?
It's a bit foolish to promote such rhetoric when the statutes governing presidential elections gave Trump the runway that he used to challenge the election.
It's not about the fragility of the structure of democracy. It's about, well this is the structure of democracy. He was allowed to challenge, and he did, so there's just no meat there.
I mean, there was also something different happening in 2021 that is no longer going on...
Trump
Well I guess that gets into the specific laws being brought up.
Some laws do involve intention, and some laws don't..
But in short I'm not convinced there was an intent to do something wrong here. I generally believe Trump thought he had won, because he's an idiot, and it's kind of hard to prove that he wasn't acting on that intention without some smoking gun message where he said otherwise. And so far nobody has produced one, that I've seen.
Yep, so I would definitely get government out of selling both alcohol and lottery tickets.
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:
