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
The Senate has equal representation for all states. It doesn't favor any since they all get exactly the same two votes.
It *fails* to favor more populous states with different racial makeups, and that lack of favoritism is the whole point.
But no, Senate rules are explicitly recognized within the Constitutional order as each chamber can set its own rules.
The problem with your reasoning is that Gaetz is being roundly rejected by Republicans for his stance.
In other words, Republicans are rejecting a member pushing for one-party rule, so they're not.
Never overlook the possibility that we have these results from the democratic systems because unfortunately they're the ones the voters have honestly been asking for.
Often enough the systems function perfectly to give voters what they want; they just want "bad" things.
To respond to your question about candidates campaigning I'd bring up the GOP debate last week. Where was the candidate on stage offering a sober, rational take on holding office? There wasn't one because that's not what their voters seem to be asking for.
So many mainstream GOP voters express that they want fighters, not administrators, so that's what the candidates' campaigns offer.
Through ignorance and misinformation voters don't know how the US government functions, so they end up asking for bad things, which candidates are bound to offer if they're to be successful. The well-functioning system then gives the people what they want, for better or worse.
My argument?
You're missing that it's your argument on the table here, not mine.
Your argument stands and falls on its own, and so far it's rested on weak rationalizations, false comparisons, and vague handwaving.
When you're selling something like a car, the only directly involved authority is you, as you judge whatever is offered in trade to be real and sufficiently valuable or not.
Recognition by legal authorities is pretty secondary. If YOU think whatever is worth the trade then the trade can happen.
So, seeing as people do accept Bitcoin for trade in the US, Bitcoin is therefore recognized by authorities in the US, and is therefore real as per your standard.
Oh, working to secure funding is absolutely one of the major roles of an official at that level.
As head of an agency like DoT, the secretary represents his agency before Congress, laying out plans for their fiscal year and working with them to ensure that the agency's operations are first worth funding and second that the funding is spent efficiently.
So yes, such a secretary is absolutely key in the funding question.
USA politics
@raccoon this is a case of giving Trump way too much credit. And it's not like we need to be inflating his ego any farther.
Let me emphasize it: please don't inflate Trump's size on the stage. It only encourages him, and it's exactly what he wants, exactly the game he plays.
No, Trump is not the source of the idea that Biden is having mental issues. A whole lot of us watch him and come to that conclusion on our own.
A whole lot of us wish both Trump and Biden would go away, and so that's why I'm a bit annoyed to see a response like this that serves to keep both of them on the stage.
But the thing I want to emphasize is that we are far from the point of saying SCOTUS needs reformation or abolition. First let's use the tools we have to improve it.
It's like, I don't know, deciding to throw away your car and buy a new one when first we just need to try to fill the gas tank.
We have the democratic tools to fix the government. And if we're not willing to go the democratic direction first, well, all bets are off at that point.
Let's try democracy first. Let's try to educate and inform voters and empower them, because lately we have been seriously falling down on that option. Let's give it a shot.
If I really looked around and felt like we tried the democratic option and it wasn't working, okay. Then we can talk about more extreme solutions, but until we try that first step I'd say we haven't really tried the good options yet.
But he's bragging about screwing up his own job though.
If he hasn't been able to secure funding to move forward then he shouldn't be experiencing these massive costs that are based on assumptions of funding that are tenuous.
Without the funding in hand he should have been in DC working to secure the funding that he wants, not jetting around the country and involving himself in projects that aren't funded.
It's such a superficial stance for him to be taking.
We really need to stop lionizing the position of majority leader in the senate like that. It really overstates their power and excuses other senators from doing their jobs.
No, it took votes of most of the senate in cooperation with the president to appoint ACB. Every senator should be held responsible for their part in that process, not just McConnell.
(Although yes, we also need to remember that RBG set the stage for this through intentional strategizing that didn't work out)
If it was about gerrymandering then we would see substantial if minority motion toward impeachment. Gerrymandering tends to marginalize positions, but what we see there is general absence of the position.
No, my own experience from talking to people all across the country is that people don't pay attention to what their representatives are doing. They empower and re-elect representatives who act against voters' preferences, and sadly the voters are just not aware that it happens.
In this particular case I see a ton of people not realizing that impeachment is the solution at all. They aren't asking for it because they don't realize it is the thing they need to be asking for.
We can't really blame gerrymandering for this situation when the problem is much deeper: people are getting the representatives they want to vote for, but they are sadly misinformed and therefore voting for the wrong representatives.
I mean, maybe we shouldn't make it easy for authorities to punish people?
I find it troubling how many seem eager to expand government power to attack and harm us with less oversight and restriction.
Such authoritarianism is exactly what we have checks to protect us from.
The order cites statutes and rulings from the 70s that have nothing to do with the affirmative action case.
This is about a law preventing "a contractual regime based on race" not admissions.
The Supreme Court is accountable to the people that we elect to Congress, who have the ability to impeach and remove any justice that's misbehaving.
This needs to be shouted loudly and often as so many seem to be missing that through our democratic processes we have the tools through which to resolve so many disputes in society these days, including this one.
Perhaps one doesn't like that a justice isn't being impeached and removed. Fine! Stop voting for representatives who are failing to impeach, and push others to do the same.
When we keep reelecting bad representatives, well, that's on us, but it doesn't change that we have that mechanism should we choose to use it.
The order from the Court didn't specify a conflict of interest.
@ekes well, not quite:
Fediverse didn't seek to decentralize social media but rather to re-centralize it around instances.
There are major implications of that design decision, on all levels from technological through social organization.
We'll see what comes of Bluesky. Sure, they're moving suspiciously slowly, but that in itself isn't reason to make assumptions about their intentions.
Yes, that's exactly what happened: the Court announced that they didn't have enough justices among themselves interested in taking the case and that Thomas didn't participate in the discussion where they figured out if they wanted to take it.
That's all, and as usual the Court issued that resolution without providing any additional detail.
A lot of people are speculating and trying to make assumptions, but it's all just speculation past that.
The Court can't do much as it doesn't have that sort of power.
It would take action of the Executive Branch to impact social media in the way you fear.
This wasn't about the cars themselves but about whether the drivers could get out of the arbitration agreement that they'd agreed to.
The question about marketing will now be resolved through arbitration, as per the agreement.
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:
