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
Where did they specifically qualify the ruling as not setting precedent?
I really don't see how a person can read the ruling and find it so political.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/98/case.pdf
@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella@historians.social @TonyStark @axeshun
@lauren if nothing else it goes to emphasize that Trump supporters aren't a monolithic group, that there are different camps with vastly different perspectives, and that's a critical thing to keep in mind when addressing them.
@StephenRamirez@universeodon.com that's only if you have a REALLY problematic view of presidents as some sort of moral standard instead of what they are, the jerk of a politician who happened to get to the top.
That great leader philosophy needs to be rejected. We should not normalize this notion that presidents, or anyone holding any other political office, are people to be admired and emulated.
For those of us who reject such ways of looking at politicians, what you're saying here doesn't follow.
We're bound to get an asshole in the Oval Office. That's just reality. We should keep that firmly in mind as we hold them to responsible for doing their dumb jobs.
@lauren it has nothing to do with profits.
It has to do with whether the workers are working--productively, in the right roles, the right people for the task, all of that.
If a worker isn't right for the job, then it has nothing to do with profits, they need to find another place to be where they can fit in better and work better.
@expert you're not ONLY helping the site to grow.
Presumably you're also sharing content worth sharing.
@noellemitchell
@Moon in my experience one really important reason is because the brim interferes with field of vision, so you end up knocking your hard hat into obstacles that you would have otherwise seen.
Which is annoying.
Another reason is fitting into some welding masks that fit much better with the hat backwards.
Sometimes on construction sites you can identify the welders by their backwards hard hats.
@StephenRamirez@universeodon.com keep in mind that the establishment rewrote laws and brought question to precedent to clear the path for the lawyers to go that route.
The establishment was absolutely part of this.
@fencepost that's the thing about it: so many explainers like this overlook the balance that the deference was a source of a lot of bad things, and reigning it in would be good for cracking down on them too.
Chevron deference allowed a lot of bad stuff to hide, which is exactly why the court has been moving to reform it.
Just remember, it's named after a corporation for a reason.
@pinsk that's simply not a reasonable way to approach the world.
No, inaction is not action. Inaction doesn't have the effect of action--it has no effect. This is just putting words in people's mouths and then criticizing them for things that they literally didn't say, positions that they absolutely didn't take.
It's pretty antisocial to normalize that kind of approach.
TX national guard federalization & secession talk
@maeve despite kind of clickbaity reports to the contrary, no, Texas isn't defying SCOTUS.
If you pull up the SCOTUS order, Texas isn't doing anything out of compliance with it.
@Lyle I mean, I guess some are?
There are a whole lot of bigger issues people are debating today, with all of the drama around the world and hard negotiations happening with regard to borders and funding in DC.
Maybe it depends on what groups a person might be listening to?
@freemo it's a tough call, especially if you might suspect the tips are shared with other employees who actually were helpful.
@MugsysRapSheet but Trump DID ask the SCOTUS to intervene and they rejected his invitation.
SCOTUS took up Bush v Gore because Bush made the case that a lower court screwed up, which needed correcting.
SCOTUS didn't take up Trump's cases because that campaign didn't make a solid case.
It had nothing to do with Biden, but about Trump's request being unpersuasive.
This shows that the Court is happy to ignore Trump's wants when they think he's blabbering nonsense.
@philip_cardella@historians.social @TonyStark @CivilityFan @axeshun
@lauren FWIW, today I heard a bunch of self-described MAGA folks rejecting the idea as a nutty conspiracy theory.
Heck, a few of them took it to the next level and made their own conspiracy theory that something so nutty clearly came from those trying to undermine the MAGA side.
What a time to be alive.
@jrp I'm with you, personally, but then I'd say with good UI design there's room for all of us here, for different users to tailor their experiences to their personal preferences.
My reasoning: character count isn't about content but about form.
And practically, while your fediverse reading program might not be able to understand a post well enough to see what the content is about, and give you a warning, it can easily detect character count and do something you'd like if the count is too large.
If you want to skip all posts above 500 characters or whatever, it would be trivial to program a client to do that. It's a UI issue.
@KeithDevlin well, what examples do you have of that happening?
Occam's Razor would have us at least consider that maybe they rule in certain directions because the argument they propose is simply the right one, that there isn't this conspiracy involved.
@DemocracyMattersALot
@MugsysRapSheet that's because Trump's recounts never made it to SCOTUS in a way that warranted its action.
In Bush v Gore the Court was involved because a lower court had demanded a recount. When it comes to Trump it was the opposite: lower courts rebuked him already, so there wasn't anything for the SCOTUS to do.
@philip_cardella@historians.social @TonyStark @CivilityFan @axeshun
@bigheadtales what case?
But as we can see in this article, the solution didn't work and people were left without housing.
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:
