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
@coctaanatis@mstdn.social well right, and part of the story that ProPublica doesn't bother mentioning is that Thomas points out that he was completely in compliance with the reporting rules as they stood.
@vy proof?
@freemo this is one of those cases where I'd say it's important to talk to [at least] a person who has the perspective to find out why they believe it.
Have you?
So very often when I talk to people who have perspectives that are so different from my own I figure out, through discussion, why they believe what they believe, generally because they're working with a different set of facts or premises.
I know a few people with really out there beliefs, and when I chat with them I figure out the factually disagreements we have, so their ideas are sometimes rather sensible, given their inputs.
That's literally not what he said though.
The original tweet sounds like an attempt at a joke to me, so if he says that's what it was, then I can believe it.
If it doesn't match a person's notion of what a joke is, well that gets complicated.
Of course the internet can exist without central authorities!
You are welcome to run your own internet any day of the week. Set one up in your own home if you'd like.
The entire point of the engineering behind the internet is about enabling such things.
@coctaanatis@mstdn.social
Yes, it's in the basic notion of the US federal government being comprised of three coequal branches.
Should the legislative branch be able to pass laws constraining the the Court or the executive branch be able to act against the Court then they would be above the judicial branch in violation of that fundamental design, violating judicial independence.
So yep, the impeachment power is provided as the solution here, the way to remove a justice personally without violating the firewall between branches of government.
If a justice is not worth impeaching then the whole thing is null in the first place.
Here's a link to the Library of Congress page where you can browse the dozens and dozens of bills that the House has passed.
I don't know who told you they haven't passed one piece of legislation, but you should probably not trust that source.
@retrohondajunki@mstdn.social
I mean Jeffries leads the block that voted unanimously against proceeding on funding!
It's not the fault of dysfunction... and then the piece goes on to describe the dysfunction
They didn't agree to a budget this spring that was in any sort of form to be acted on.
Takei talks like there's a bill ready to be passed, but that's not how the process works.
Democrats voted as a block against proceeding on legislation to fund government, though.
Republicans overwhelmingly voted to proceed.
Unless time travel is a thing, no, Trump was not suggesting Milley could be executed with the following sentence.
This seems like just more misreporting about what the guy says, when he manages to string together a coherent sentence.
"This is an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH!”
It sounds to me like you're missing the way both sides of the issue can express authoritarian slants, with one side demanding control over their own kids and the other side demanding control over parents/institutions.
I'd say authoritarianism is on a separate axis of the graph from the parents' rights debate.
There is, so we don't need to wonder about it.
Republicans don't seem to be running around with their hair on fire over it.
@freemo yes, you can argue that your own personal use of a word is the one true use of the word, but that's just not how language works :)
And yes, some DO say that gas is green when paired with an at least equal amount of CO2 capture. That is a way some people use the term. I think it's a bit less common usage, though.
But there is the huge difference that when you grow and burn wood you're directly engaging the carbon cycle without any external factors needed.
You capture carbon and just release the exact same carbon that you captured, without any accounting or trickery of assuming other carbon will be captured somewhere else.
The drugs have been tested much more broadly than these headlines claim. They're only looking at one subset of tests that involved a few mice.
In other words, they were only tested on ten mice and then a bunch of other tests.
@coctaanatis@mstdn.social
But Supreme Court justices aren't required to commit to such disclosures since that would represent a violation of the independence of the judicial branch.
The one and only available response to a justice misbehaving is individual impeachment.
Otherwise the other branches could exert all sorts of pressure on the Court by law or threat of sanction.
Congress does have a constitutional role in lower courts, but the independence of the Supreme Court is core to the system of checks and balances.
@thor but isn't this exactly what you're doing?
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:
