volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@DavidBruchmann and once again I notice that you aren't addressing any actual arguments being made in court rulings.

Uncritical view? I'm criticizing your view!

What you're describing is just not how the US judicial system works.

It's all about reasoning, not about individuals. You keep coming back to individuals, now you're talking about long time judges for some reason, and again that doesn't matter at all.

What matters is the actual reasoning in the opinion, not the identity of the person who put pen to paper to write the opinion.

The US judicial system is not about ad hominem arguments. And you are giving nothing but ad hominem arguments.

@AnthonyFStevens

@lovelylovely fortunately that's not how the US government works, as it has checks and balances to make sure nobody can do that even if they want to.

Or to put it a different way, yeah people have been crying wolf about that sort of thing for a long time, and this is just more crying wolf.

@DavidBruchmann That's not actually true though.

Yes, it makes for drama and it makes for a sensationalized headlines, but it's not actually factually true.

If I bribe you to do the right thing, it's still the right thing regardless of the bribe.

So we have all of these articles with sensational, often later debunked headlines focusing on personalities but precious little attention being paid to the reasoning itself.

And the reasoning is really all that matters.

So it ends up being ad hominem arguments full of juicy speculation about personal lives that don't actually matter in the least.

The reasoning is what matters.

All the talk of bribes is just basically propaganda.

@AnthonyFStevens

@DavidBruchmann Well I think that the rule of law is pretty important to society.

As is accurate recitation of the facts as we go about the democratic processes that help us establish that rule of law.

I happen to believe that anarchism is a bad thing that leaves society worse off, so from there I wish to protect the mechanism that establishes rational governance.

So I hope this clarifies things for you. I want to protect against critics who undermine the legal order whether through bad policy or false propaganda. I think it's worth protecting.

@AnthonyFStevens

@GW@newsie.social Well because even if we go with your premise, occupation without invitation is absolutely not the same thing as wiping them off the face of the earth.

Those histrionics don't do anybody any good. It just means that anyone paying attention will ignore such a position as clearly sensationalized.

@rowat_c I have no idea what you're on about.

You miss frame something I said as ad hominem, whether through your own misunderstanding of what I said or your misunderstanding of what an ad hominem is, I'm actually not sure, but apparently you enjoyed that?

Anyway, no I adopted your own description of Luddites. They were wrong, though, as your own description of what they believed didn't pan out.

I agree with you about what they thought. Just as I would agree with you, probably, about what flat earthers believe.

But in both cases they were simply wrong.

@DavidBruchmann but Roe v Wade had already been overturned by Casey long ago.

And again this is the issue of focusing on judges instead of focusing on reasoning.

It's extremely telling that you didn't mention anything about actual arguments, actual logic, and just said something about what judges might do.

That is crucial.

@AnthonyFStevens

@wjmaggos you say you are not against these things while promoting policies that are against these things.

Yes you think it's crazy that other people don't agree with you. Well maybe if you understood other perspectives then you wouldn't think it's so crazy. But you seem very myopic in your understanding of the world.

@freemo

Personally, I'd say focus on people.

@wjmaggos is proposing actions that harm people.

I don't care about whether that makes government better or worse, I care about the people who are impacted by those bad decisions.

@freemo

@GW@newsie.social Well that's not true.

Israel's goal is not to eliminate Palestine from the face of the earth, or else they would have done it. They have the ability to do it. If they wanted to they would have.

It's just foolish to buy into that propaganda.

@rowat_c what ad hominem?

@wollman Oh well the reason I keep talking about the controversy around Old Town Road is to highlight that the definition was handed over to broadcasters because other potential authorities just wanted to avoid the drama, wanted to avoid the controversy.

It doesn't have anything particularly rational beyond that. Regardless of what the listenership actually did, those authorities just ducked the question because they didn't want to face the flack again, they just found someone else--anyone else--to make the definition for them.

@rowat_c Oh we definitely benefit from internal combustion engines regardless of road signs and governance.

Really you're more referring to the benefit of the public road, not the benefit of the internal combustion engine.

The government makes the road so it can make the rules to govern its own roads. It's a completely different matter.

@wjmaggos

Would you agree that buying a milling machine means that a worker would be able to operate that machine to make parts to earn a living?

And without that machine the worker would face poverty as he is unable to make the parts to earn the living?

Well, how do you buy the milling machine? You concentrate wealth to place the order for the machine.

In the real world wealth concentration is part of alleviating poverty.

@freemo

@rowat_c Oh it's not bait.

I think it's clear that the Luddites were wrong in the end, and it's funny that where I'm from that's the general consensus. It wasn't even until recently that I realized there was a difference of opinion on that.

It's like coming across actual flat earthers.

Luddites were afraid of technological advancement being bad for humanity, and we've seen that it instead was a tremendous boon for humanity. They were on the wrong side with their shortsighted viewpoints.

@wollman I don't disagree about the small room.

I would just say that with the controversy we have apparently left it up to those few people, who in theory are serving the market for listeners. And in practice, who knows what's really pushing their decisions.

So maybe they do focus on southern accents, trucks, and beer. Or maybe they are taking bribes to get music on the air.

But either way, I think that's the answer as far as I can see.

After the controversy we have decided that country music is whatever gets played on country music stations, for whatever reason it gets played.

@wollman After the Old Town Road controversy of 2018 it seems the operative definition is whatever self-described country music stations decide to play.

@nando161 and then experience even more cruelty in response.

So maybe don't.

@rowat_c I offer the comparison with the Luddites who feared advancement and are now seen as having been a bit goofy in their worries.

No, let's see where this goes and let's apply it to our needs.

The advancement is going to happen. The only question is whether we reap advantages or not.