volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@tsyum but that's exactly what the Supreme Court said, that officials do seem confused about what constitutes violence, so legally they need to go work that out before it can be further addressed by the courts.

In this case the claim is that an "individual threw a piece of concrete or a similar rock-like object, striking respondent Officer Doe in the face. Officer Doe suffered devastating injuries in the line of duty, including loss of teeth and brain trauma."

I don't think it's particularly reasonable to consider that violent and consider how it would be handled under the state law, independent of anything involving protest.

So yep, SCOTUS said to go back and figure out some of the confusion about violence.

https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/mckesson-v-doe.pdf

@SirBemrose imagine not realizing that claims of deepstate are thrown around to explain anything the claimer doesn't want to hear, to the point that apparently pretty much the whole country must be involved in that conspiracy, except that one person.

I guess they're just lonely?

Have you considered that when the public basically IS the deepstate, based on how vast the conspiracy claims must be, then the will of the public is the will of the deepstate, since they're the same people?

Now if you'll pardon me, I need to go laminate my deepstate membership card. The line at the deepstate coffee shop was too long this morning so I had to put it off.

@mk @freemo

@SirBemrose as neither side is open to hearing each others' perspectives, they are functionally equivalent.

Oh the truth is on your side? That's nice. But your own claim to a highground doesn't actually move the ball.

At best you can feel smug about it, but then again, both sides are arriving at that same conclusion, ending in the same smugness that doesn't really matter to anyone not satisfied with narcissism.

@freemo @mk

@mattmcirvin even if SOMEHOW Dr. Fauci was such a poor judge of humans that he wouldn't foresee that (which I find very hard to believe) he kept on the job long after that sort of thing would have become blindingly apparent.

So Fauci somehow misjudged the situation. Fine. He could have admitted his mistake and resigned, leaving it to someone else with more ability to deal with the situation.

I just don't give him a pass for any of that.

He could have remained an expert working behind the scenes to support the work while leaving the public engagement to folks with that skillset.

He is at fault for remaining and mishandling the situation so badly.

@quatrezoneilles

@Jennifer they aren't.

They believe they're doing the exact opposite.

@tsyum the vox article is misleading, though, as vox so often is.

The right to protest is not on the table here. This case is all about how state law engages with a person potentially demonstrating negligence by directing a situation that ended in violence.

That has nothing to do with protesting itself (unless one believes protesting is necessarily violent, at which point eek), but relates to a content neutral application of community standards of responsibility for safety.

It says, protest all you want, so long as you do so in a reasonably responsible manner.

@thisismissem I take it the ads don't apply/respect community labels?

@photomatt

@jby perhaps one way to look at it is that the first time Trump was elected by a coalition of different voters with diverse interests, so the garbage he spewed back then was moderated by push and pull in different directions.

This time it seems to me like much of the coalition is absent, leaving Trump in an echo chamber without as much rhetorical challenge and (as seen here) fewer ideas to fewer ideas to regurgitate, so he has to return to the same line to fill the time.

GOP primary voters seem pretty insular this time, so I think you might be on to something.

@danwentzel and just to follow up on my response from last night, one part of the picture is the position by many Republicans (and others) that all of this really is a team sport, and that in this case only Republicans should be choosing the nominee.

For those people, they really don't care what non-Republicans anywhere think, which is why I emphasized the party in my comment.

It's sad for them since they'll sure have to care about what those people think if they want to win, but it's a childish box they're painting themselves into, depriving themselves of input from voters who actually do really matter.

@quatrezoneilles no, I don't extend that excuse to him.

Dr. Fauci wasn't just an expert but someone who had taken a job as a public facing public official. Communicating with and engaging with the public was part of the job.

And he blew it.

He didn't foresee bad faith and water-murkying? How? If he was THAT out of touch with the public then he was unfit for holding a position where understanding the public was so critical.

So I don't know if he could have played his cards better. If he couldn't foresee water-murkying then he was unfit to play the game.
@mattmcirvin

@mattmcirvin I would take exception to some of that, but more to my point, the scientific method's requirement of rigorous experimental design pushes back on blind combing of the universe.

This is part of my proposal: if "science" is maintained as the specific process, but the critic skips steps, then we'd avoid them being able to claim the mantle of science or scientific disproof.

But that's only if we refuse the dilution of terminology that otherwise allows them to claim the authority of science.

@dalfen OH!

You're right, I was in politics brain and had substituted Tim Scott 🙂

@danwentzel Oh they do care, quite a bit!

The thing is that an unfortunate number of Republicans are buying into their own rhetoric and believe that Republican people of color and people who live in urbanized America are already behind Trump, so it's just a waste to go through the process.

It's not that they don't care. It's that they have convinced themselves they know what the answer is already.

@0batty_bat0 I think this is a link to the bill, and the articles aren't really a capturing what the legislation would change.

In particular it requires that force or threat of force be part of the defense for responding with deadly force.

That goes beyond merely being unhoused.

https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/24rs/hb5.html

@gcblasing@mstdn.social @spencerbeswick

@dalfen One of the most infuriating things about Trump supporters is how often I hear them celebrating what a great orator he is: "Oh ha ha, Biden can't complete a sentence, but our great Trump is such a word smith!"

It's one of those things that lead me to generally suspect that none of them at all actually listen to him at all. They all just watch his mouth move and then substitute whatever words they want to be hearing.

I've been surprised by the timing and number of endorsements Trump has been getting from people like Tim Cook, so who knows what's going on behind the scenes or what was going through Cooks's head as he was standing up there.

I wonder if he's either playing along with the what Trump says doesn't matter to these people take, or maybe he himself substituted his own words in his mind too.

@dalfen It sounds like you're overlooking that so many potential Trump voters don't ignore the charges because he kissed a flag.

Rather, they consider those to be badges of honor for him and even confirmation of the whole bus versus them attitude that he has been running on.

It's not despite the charges for those voters. It is in part because of the charges that he has gained so much support.

In the end there is no one model of trump voter. Trump was elected by many different types of voters, often with directly conflicting values and goals, free traders and isolationists just to name two of those groups.

But if you want to understand what's going on in US politics with regard to Trump, it's important to recognize how much those felony charges increased his likelihood of success.

@GeePawHill I am so sure because I know how the system works, I watch it all the time, I know about the laws and the procedures and we have seen how they successfully work over and over.

And heck, if Trump could have turned off democracy he already would have. He was president already, and he utterly utterly fell on his face trying to get that election victory, he gave it his best shot, but the system is so solid, so firmly established that it swatted him away like a gnat.

Look at the events leading up to January 6th. We know how hard Trump worked to stay in office, but all of the mechanisms the US government has in place to protect democracy just made it an exercise in futility. There's just no way to get around that.

So no, democracy is not on the ballot. It literally cannot be since we have such strong legal frameworks preventing exactly that from happening.

The law matters. The laws protecting democracy most of all. And it's because we have such legal frameworks that we can say firmly that democracy cannot be on the ballot.

We need to support those laws by recognizing them. They won't go away if we talk like they're not there, but it doesn't help.

@GeePawHill still no.