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
@phiofx@hachyderm.io Well it's not so much circular reasoning as emphasizing the critical mass that any social media platform requires to be successful.
It's not really reasoning at all, just the observation that all social media platforms face that chicken and egg problem.
Without social, you can't have a social media platform, but that requires social to make the social media platform. It's just the reality of the world.
@Kozmo this claim is simply factually false.
No, the immunity being sought does not create a king who could do whatever they please. Rather it is a limited application of limited existing law, derived from the democratic process, that stands IN OPPOSITION to presidents doing whatever they want, particularly prosecuting anyone they want.
So the story gets it exactly backwards.
We have laws that protect people against purported kings who would seek to prosecute whatever they please. The court is being asked whether those limiting laws apply here.
@m_artigiani Well it's a bit complicated because so many people actually do embrace the idea of being siloed in different instances primarily.
For so many people that question is exactly the way it does and should work.
@iuculano but that's not at all what's going on.
SCOTUS is not being asked to grant any sort of absolute presidential immunity, nor would it have the authority to grant such a thing even if it was asked.
Which, again can't be overstated, it's not being asked to do here.
These source of histrionics only play into Trump's strategy, so we should not go down that road.
@PattyHanson That's not how the Court is to work, though.
It's not an issue of common sense. It's an issue of respecting the law, even when the law itself lacks common sense.
The US has democratic processes to shape the law for the public, and often enough the public for whatever reason ends up wanting laws that are just stupid and lacking in common sense.
The Court isn't to second guess democracy simply because the unaccountable individuals on the Court disagree with the sense of what we wanted.
It's about democracy and the law, not about common sense.
@flexghost sure, but do you have an answer to the question or what?
@KimPerales I mean, anybody interested in privacy should be concerned about Warren's efforts to stick federal noses into our business like this.
She has a long track record of being pretty eager to put federal power over people's privacy rights, particularly with regard to our pocketbooks.
@kegill Well it only blocks the ability to string out the DC trial if the Court takes the unusual step of accepting the request.
Otherwise it actually HELPS string out the trial since it adds this extra step in the proceedings.
volkris
boosted
@Nonilex Smith is being a bit sensational there, playing to the peanut gallery.
No, this is not a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy. It's a corner case of a question related to executive authority to prosecute in light of federal law.
Basically, Smith is citing the wrong branch of government, and I'm sure he realizes exactly what he's doing.
volkris
boosted
Shrimpfluencer.
9,990 orders of shrimp paste:
The woman was having a meal with friends at a hotpot restaurant in Kunming, a city in southwest China. When everyone's selections arrived at the table, she posted a photo of the spread on the Chinese...
https://jwz.org/b/ykG9
I thought this report was a refreshingly balanced and realistic description of the #engineering challenges behind #Tesla 's development of the cybertruck.
With all the sensationalism and drama out there it's nice to see reporting that presents actual experts describing how R&D is done.
@sxpert nope, that is not what I'm saying.
@NoBeerToday@mastodon.social @Mary625@mstdn.social
@sxpert Well no, the US went on the record with additional arguments about taking a harder line against addressing the regional violence.
Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if your new sources didn't cover that. But it's right there in the UN readouts.
If you didn't hear those arguments then you need to find news sources that aren't engaging in selective reporting.
@NoBeerToday@mastodon.social @Mary625@mstdn.social
@NoBeerToday@mastodon.social Well that's not true seeing as the US stood at the UN and called out the Arab states for not taking a harder line against genocide.
So much reporting is getting this exactly backwards, but it's debunked when looking at the records coming out of the UN itself.
@sxpert @Mary625@mstdn.social
@sxpert I did post a link.
And yes, I am just saying things. I am saying that we ought to debunk all of these claims that are so easily repudiated by just looking at what the UN is saying about its own processes.
There's a lot of people lying out there on social media. Let's call them out on it and point out that the UN puts out plenty of information that directly disproves all of those conspiracy theories.
I am just saying things. I am just saying we need to fight back against the conspiracy theories.
But if you want to support the conspiracy theories, go right ahead, it's social media, that's pretty common here.
@NoBeerToday@mastodon.social @Mary625@mstdn.social
@sxpert Yeah, heaven forbid we cite the UN when talking about what the UN is doing.
@NoBeerToday@mastodon.social @Mary625@mstdn.social
@sxpert I don't have it in my paste buffer at the moment, but it's all available at un.org
So there you go.
@NoBeerToday@mastodon.social @Mary625@mstdn.social
@flexghost sometimes conspiracy theories are just so reachy like an octopus that they are just silly.
This is such a case.
What in the world does Musk have to do with a cancer case apparently involving Alex Jones? That's going to take a lot of red yarn on the bulletin board to justify.
@sxpert I mean it's there on the UN website as the UN reports about what is going on in the organization.
Just go to the UN to see that so much reporting about the UN is just flat out false.
@NoBeerToday@mastodon.social @Mary625@mstdn.social
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:
