volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@LiamOMaraIV I linked the order directly from the Supreme Court website. If you think the Supreme Court is wrong about the Supreme Court order, then I guess take it up with them?

@BohemianPeasant it depends on who you ask.

The other side says common sense says Trump obviously did not foment insurrection.

With recognizing that disagreement you won't see what the Supreme Court is working with, what they have to recognize as they come up with their ruling.

The fundamental question here is how do we settle that disagreement.

@maddad

@StephenRamirez@universeodon.com that comes across as a mismash of ideas, conflating respect of election results with rejection of them, and back and forth, with something about courts involved somewhere along the process.

It's not a compelling case to anyone not already in the choir.

It's nonsense.

@jeze3D@mastodon.social Oh, no, it goes so much farther than that: not only are Americans not protesting, but they're actively encouraging by going out and taking action to reelect the same representatives.

Folks have commented that Americans are tired, and that would be a reasonable point except that people are apparently not so tired that they can't find the energy to go out and vote for the folks doing this stuff.

We don't need to protest. We need to stop actively empowering politicians who do bad things.

@opalmirror or they can point out that a lot of people are misreading the amendment.

Which is entirely the case, whichever side one might be on.

@cdarwin

@cdarwin I'd say it's really key that you didn't entirely quote the relevant part of the 14th Amendment.

And that highlights the problem here: a lot of people are insisting that this is an open and shut case by papering over important elements through such handwaving.

No, there are serious quesitons of law here, and it's entirely reasonable to say, based on the actual text, that the case really goes in favor of Trump.

Just proclaiming otherwise doesn't make it so.

@LiamOMaraIV No, the words of the court did not order such a thing.

Go ahead and read the words for yourself.

You'll see for yourself that the court did not make such an order.

@hughtaylorscifi@universeodon.com The problem is that the mastodon way of sorting feeds and displaying content promotes echo chambers.

Everybody is celebrating this idea of leaving algorithms behind, and even setting aside that chronological sort IS an algorithm, when you leave people with only hashtags and follows as the only ways of tailoring their feeds, you end up with even more echo chambers.

I don't think Mastodon was the best way to go. Maybe it was a minor improvement, maybe not, but it just wasn't the real solution to the problems people were looking to have solved.

@Ronial it's money for the poor ones because the poor ones derive value from using it as money!

Haven't I made that clear? I'm surprised you don't know by now how I think that since I think I spelled out how I think that a couple of times now.

It's almost like you just don't want to hear it because it doesn't match what you want to believe.

Or maybe you're just too busy thinking about the rich for some reason.

@nurglerider

@nurglerider Oh I thought I said it above so I didn't want to repeat myself.

No, Bitcoin does not require this amount of energy. It's not part of the protocol or the design of the system.

You could run the entire Bitcoin system off of a car battery and a solar cell if you wanted to. Not just one node, but the entire system. The crypto runs on a fanless Raspberry Pi just fine

All of this shouting about the amount of energy that bitcoin requires is just sensationalist hyperbole that doesn't match the technological facts of how the system functions and what it requires.

I'm sorry that there are so many outlets putting out sensationalist nonsense to get clicks, but they're wrong.

Now, there is an option for people to trade more energy for Bitcoin if it's valuable enough to them, if it's worthwhile and worth more than the energy to them, but that is completely optional, completely up to them.

And at that point it's a matter of trading something that's less valuable for something that's more valuable, which is a good thing by definition.

But bitcoin doesn't require it.

@Ronial

@mrcopilot that's not how the Supreme Court works.

@LiamOMaraIV that's not what SCOTUS told them.

The order is public. We can all read for ourselves that such a claim is flat out false.

@newsopinionsandviews anyone thinking this is simple and unambiguous have not heard or understood the arguments pointing out how complex and ambiguous it absolutely is.

It's an extremely naive view of the case.

A dangerously naive view of the case.

That's at best. I'd like to call it a flat out deceptive view of the case, but I'm trying to be diplomatic, as per Hanlon's Razor.

@bblaze@iceshrimp.social well, not necessarily clickbait or gaslighting but also, perhaps, pushing an agenda while relying on simple ignorance of what has happened here.

@Ronial so you wouldn't mind if it was, in your words, "cryptocurrencies for the rich people"?

That wasn't an attack, just some neutral description you happened to be wrong about, but that didn't factor into your opinion?

To be clear, you're not against Bitcoin, but against this false version of how Bitcoin works.

But I think it's funny that you seem to be distancing yourself from a position that it's a problem that it might be "for the rich".
@nurglerider

@noyes **YUP!**

And folks perceiving this as having been a uniquely unparalleled breach of ethics is exactly why so many are so pissed off about it, demanding investigations, and demanding accountability for what they're seeing as exactly such a monumental breach of all sorts of norms, laws, expectations, and all the rest.

@73ms ha, I half agree, but I think you skated past the important point:

This is caused by us having laws *both created and enforced by individuals that we elected and continue to elect*.

I DO want to zero in on "this is caused by us having laws" because that's the key to improving things.

We keep reelecting the people who promote that, and the solution is for us to stop doing that.

That we have laws is the problem. That we elect better people is the solution.

So it's vital to realize that this is all up to the population in the end.

@nurglerider

Right, you shouldn't have to explain this to me because you shouldn't have been so factually misinformed in the first place.

You SHOULD know better if this is a topic that's interesting to you.

Sadly, it sounds like you have been misinformed, so here we are.

@Ronial