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
@Free_Press other words are needed: many are holding out for MORE aid and more effective supplies than we've seen so far.
@HistoPol Power hungry?
Thomas often issues opinions that give up power!
When you consider his actual work on the Court instead of all of this sensationalized drama, it paints a much different picture.
@cjammet we see over and over that taxing particular sales to fund social programs causes trouble as those sales can't provide a consistent and reliable revenue stream.
So no.
If a government program is needed, fund it through a general fund so it doesn't rely on any particular funding stream.
@iuculano and yet conservative outlets were playing results from the hearings that really supported their causes.
So it really comes down to who you're listening to, who is editing the claims that show up in your echo chamber.
@BohemianPeasant I mean, sometimes the cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes testimony is simply not particularly convincing.
We don't really need to go digging deeper to find conspiracy theories or whatever. Sometimes a person makes a claim that just sounds wrong, and they aren't able to back up the accusations they're making.
If you're talking about the relationship between the US federal government and US states, that raises very different complications.
But this is not about what is okay or not okay. It's about what is.
A government responsive to its people will have policies that restrict what government employees can do.
@Luis_Fierro it doesn't, though. Rules against racial profiling and harassment are not affected by the Court's ruling.
This sounds like a politician trying to score political points through trumped up claims.
@tokensane all of them. They all play roles in the system, they all do work even if different types of work.
It's about power and control, but it's also about governments striving to be responsive to the populations, even if they miss the mark, since that's generally the source of notions of right and wrong in the governmental context.
When low level workers use their positions to take ideological stands that go against the ideology adopted by a responsive government as a whole, it's not surprising that there would be pushback from the top.
So yep, you could say it's about power and control, to use Machiavellian language, but it's hard to see how it could go any other way in a governmental institution.
@blogdiva the Supreme Court didn't have the authority to make slavery the law of the land.
That's just not how the US system of government works, despite sensational stories that are sold based on such misunderstandings of basic civics.
Truly democratic societies rely on folks understanding the basics of how their governments function, which is why it's so crucial to correct these misunderstandings of how the different branches of government function in the system.
@mk
Sorry you don't get the joke.
We're laughing though.
That it continues to go over your head just makes it funnier.
@Hyolobrika @CSB
@ScottLucas you're getting the system backwards, though: it's not that disagreeing representatives are roadblocks as much as actors needed in our democratic system to get things done.
YES, I'm critical of representatives and I constantly tell voters to stop reelecting jerks. But so long as people reelect jerks, well, that's the Congress we have.
If the president wants to get things done then, well it's rough but he'll have to work with them. There's no way around that in the US system of representative government.
You're not going to get on with anything if you don't work with the people you need to work with. That's the whole point.
That approach will simply fail, and fail loudly.
@Remittancegirl they haven't.
We've failed them.
Or rather, the tools are there for us to use, should we want to use them, but unfortunately the population is a combination of misinformed about and disinterested in having a really functioning government.
Take the example of our elected officials declining to hold presidents accountable for breaking laws: it's not that the checks and balances are failing, but that the representatives of the people sanction the behavior, just as the system was intended to work.
But we keep reelecting those reps, so I guess it's what we want.
@tokensane yep, so it goes to show the problem with starting down that road, particularly in cases of state actors.
@blogdiva but the Supreme Court isn't about conscience. It's about law.
As an appeals court the job of the SCOTUS is to rule on law, regardless of conscience.
Any justice putting conscience ahead of law is not playing their role in our democratic system.
@PattyHanson that's not what was allowed by the decision, though.
@W_Lucht I mean, it sounds like it's backlash against ideologically motivated rhetoric, and you're laying out the ideology, confirming the motivation.
@Remittancegirl the thing to remember is that the design of the US government considered that, and that's exactly why presidents don't get to do just whatever they want.
A major reason for constraining the office of the presidency is to make that not really matter.
Indeed: ponder that, and recognize how brilliant the system of checks and balances is to mitigate that risk.
@mk twist: I don't really care about your bio.
@mk he's making fun of you.
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:
